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

Annotations only mark this as a non-destructive write, so the description carries the behavioral burden - and it does add real value by disclosing a cross-surface side effect: the same order governs the public answers link and the Word export, i.e. 'настройка меняет и то, что видят другие.' It still omits permissions required and whether the change applies retroactively to existing answers.

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?

Two sentences, zero padding, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the mode definitions and the side effect. Every clause 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 tiny two-parameter setting tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly sufficient: purpose, both modes, and downstream effects are covered. Only permission requirements and retroactivity of the change are left unstated.

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 description coverage is 100% and the enum's own description already defines 'respondent' and 'survey'. The description paraphrases the same meaning rather than adding syntax, defaults, or edge-case behavior, so the 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 and resource: 'Задаёт порядок вопросов внутри карточки ответа' (sets the order of questions in the answer card), with both modes spelled out. The resource is unique among siblings (set_answer_note, toggle_answer_visibility, set_quiz_email_questions), but no sibling is named or contrasted explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The two mode semantics ('respondent' = actual respondent path, 'survey' = survey question order) imply which to pick, but the description never states when to choose one over the other for a given task, and names no alternatives or exclusions. Usage is inferred rather than guided.

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