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

Annotations declare a non-destructive, non-idempotent write op. The description adds context the annotations cannot: the settings apply globally to all surveys in the workspace ('общие для всех опросов') and there is a plan-gated restriction on disabling the copyright. These are genuine behavioral disclosures beyond the structured hints.

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 that state purpose, scope, and constraint with no wasted text. Each sentence carries distinct information.

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?

No output schema exists and annotations are present, so the description need not cover return values. It adequately covers what the tool configures, its global scope, and a plan limitation — sufficient for a simple three-parameter configuration tool.

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 three parameters, including the plan caveat on show_copyright. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, 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 gives a specific verb ('Настраивает') and resource (workspace branding) and names the configurable aspects (logo and copyright display). It implicitly distinguishes itself from image-management siblings like upload_workspace_logo by focusing on display toggles, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 states a meaningful precondition — hiding the copyright is not available on all plans ('доступно не на всех тарифах') — which guides the agent. However, there is no clear when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance or routing to sibling tools, so usage is only partially covered.

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