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

Annotations only declare the generic profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false); the description adds real value by explaining that a disabled webhook remains configured, that no deliveries occur, and that the platform auto-disables it after repeated failures. It does not address the idempotentHint=false claim for what is arguably an idempotent set-to-value operation.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the two facts an agent needs. No filler or repetition.

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 three-parameter toggle with no output schema, the description covers the operation, the state semantics and the recovery path adequately. It omits any note on required permissions or what a successful response looks like, which are minor given the annotations.

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%, so all three parameters (quiz_id, webhook_id, is_active) are already documented in the schema, including the true/false meaning of is_active and the webhook_id lookup source. The description adds behavioral context but no parameter-level detail beyond the schema.

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+resource pair ('Включает или выключает вебхук') and immediately clarifies the semantics of the off state, which cleanly separates it from siblings like create_quiz_webhook, update_quiz_webhook and delete_quiz_webhook. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

It supplies a genuine usage scenario — re-enabling a webhook that auto-disabled after delivery failures once the receiver is fixed — but never contrasts itself with update_quiz_webhook, which presumably can also change active state, and gives no explicit when-not guidance.

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