Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral context: the 100-character cap and that an empty value removes the note, which is mutation semantics not conveyed by the hints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core action and examples, then constraints, then disambiguation, with no filler. Slightly dense due to the dash-separated example list and trailing negation clause, but every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple mutation tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, examples, size limit, removal semantics, and sibling disambiguation. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (note, quiz_id, answer_id) are already documented, including the max length and empty-removes behavior. The description mostly restates these, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('ставит') and resource ('пометку у отдельного ответа респондента'), plus concrete example values. It explicitly distinguishes itself from two siblings (update_quiz_note, tag_answer), so an agent can tell it apart without opening schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Names the two near-neighbor tools and states the conditions that route to them ('не заметка к опросу целиком', 'не тег'), giving explicit when-not and alternatives. Little is left to inference for choosing this tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.