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

With no annotations, the description carries the full factual burden. It discloses that unmentionned settings are preserved, that this is a mutation of pre-collection settings, explains the three speed modes with risk tradeoffs, and notes the performance impact of disabling photos/reviews. It does not discuss persistence or permissions, but core side effects are covered.

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 focused sentences: purpose, partial-update semantics with an example, and mode/performance guidance. No filler, with the most important information front-loaded.

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?

The tool has 17 optional parameters and no annotation coverage; the description explains overall semantics and a few settings, but not the complete set. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the example helps, but the description is not fully complete for invoking every parameter with confidence.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It defines the 'mode' enum values and gives an example with 'images', 'reviews', and 'reviewsLimit'. However, the other parameters are left to inference from their names, with no explicit semantics. This is only partial compensation.

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 'Меняет настройки перед сбором' — a specific verb ('changes'), a clear resource ('settings'), and a temporal scope ('before collection'). It also states the partial-update behavior, which separates it from the read-only sibling parsee_get_options.

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 context: call this to adjust collection settings in advance, and pass only the fields you want changed. It provides a concrete JSON example and speed-mode guidance. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, so it falls 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.