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

Annotations already declare it is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds that it saves custom button and interface texts, which is slightly more specific than the annotation's generic write hint, but it omits non-idempotence, permission requirements, and what happens on reset beyond the schema's mention.

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 zero waste. It is appropriately sized for a simple update tool.

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?

Given the rich input schema (100% coverage, detailed examples, and a reference to the quiz://{id}/texts resource) and the presence of annotations, the terse description is largely sufficient. It could optionally mention usage context, but the surrounding structured data fills the main gaps.

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 the schema fully documents both parameters, including examples and reset semantics. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given the high coverage.

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 states a specific verb (Сохраняет) and resource (пользовательские тексты кнопок и интерфейсных элементов опроса), making clear what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate from the read-only sibling get_quiz_texts or other update tools, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only asserts what it does; it offers no context about prerequisites, when to call it, or how it relates to get_quiz_texts or other quiz-setting updates.

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