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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful trait not present in the annotations: the merge/partial-update semantics, telling the agent that omitted fields are preserved rather than reset. It does not mention auth requirements or reversibility.

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, front-loaded sentences with no waste: purpose first, then the partial-update behavior, then the ID source. Efficient, though not maximally tight.

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 an 11-parameter mutation with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral points (partial update, ID source) while the schema carries all parameter detail and annotations carry safety. It is adequate but leaves auth/permission expectations and response behavior 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%, so every one of the 11 parameters (including enums for hours and method, and the nested body/headers objects) is already documented. The description reinforces only webhook_id's source, which the schema already states, so the baseline of 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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource ("Изменяет вебхук опроса" — modifies a quiz webhook), which cleanly separates it from the create/delete/toggle webhook siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than being told.

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 gives clear operating context: unspecified fields keep their current values, so only changed fields need to be sent, and it points to get_quiz_webhooks as the source of webhook_id. There are no explicit when-not-to-use notes or named alternatives, so it falls just short of a 5.

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