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

Annotations already declare this is a write, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description merely repeats 'updates' and adds 'служебную' but offers no additional behavioral detail such as permissions required, partial update semantics, or effects on other settings. No contradiction with annotations.

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 appropriately concise for a simple update tool, though its extreme brevity leaves gaps that conciseness alone cannot excuse.

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 straightforward update mutation, the schema fully documents parameters and annotations cover safety profile, so the description only needs to convey purpose. It does so, but omits any usage guidance or sibling differentiation, leaving a clear gap for agent selection.

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 four parameters are already documented in the input schema, including where to obtain opt_id. The description adds no parameter information, so baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the full burden.

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 (Обновляет) and resource (скрытую служебную опцию виджета опроса), making the high-level purpose clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from close siblings like update_hidden_option or update_quiz_widgets.

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?

Provides no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. An agent cannot tell from the description when to prefer this tool over update_hidden_option or update_quiz_widgets.

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