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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, and openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of required permissions, whether the change is reversible, or what happens to the option's other fields — so for a mutation tool it is essentially a restatement of the name.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is arguably too terse, but conciseness itself is not the problem — nothing redundant is present.

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?

With full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the minimum needed to call the tool is present. Still, as a mutation tool with no output schema, the description omits when to use it and what effect the update has, leaving a real gap for an agent choosing among the hidden-option siblings.

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%: all four parameters (quiz_id, opt_id, name, value) are documented in the schema, including the useful hint that opt_id comes from quiz://{id}/hidden_options. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description gives a clear verb+resource pair ('Обновляет скрытую служебную опцию опроса'), so an agent knows this mutates an existing hidden quiz option rather than creating or deleting one. However, it does not distinguish itself from near-siblings such as update_widget_hidden_option or the create/delete_hidden_option family, leaving the boundary implicit.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus add/create_hidden_option, delete_hidden_option, get_quiz_hidden_options, or update_widget_hidden_option, and no prerequisites (e.g., needing an opt_id sourced from quiz://{id}/hidden_options, which only the schema mentions). Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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