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

Annotations already declare it a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: unset fields retain their current values, so it is a partial-update patch semantics, not a full replacement. It does not cover auth requirements or rate limits, but the partial-update disclosure is the key risk-relevant fact.

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 purpose, then the partial-update behavior, then the ID source. No filler; every sentence carries information the agent needs.

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 mutation tool with annotations covering safety and a fully documented schema, the description is nearly complete: it states purpose, update semantics, and ID provenance. Return behavior is not described, but with no output schema and read-only/expected diff not being a concern, this is a minor gap.

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 already documents all 11 params (including the enums and nested objects), establishing the baseline of 3. The description adds the partial-vs-full update meaning for unspecified params but no per-parameter 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 ("Изменяет") plus resource ("вебхук опроса"), and points to get_quiz_webhooks as the ID source. It clearly identifies the operation, but does not explicitly contrast with near siblings like create_quiz_webhook, delete_quiz_webhook, or toggle_quiz_webhook.

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?

Explains the partial-update contract ("можно слать только то, что меняется"), which governs how to invoke the tool, and tells the agent where to obtain webhook_id. It gives clear context but no explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives.

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