Impact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost nothing. "Анализ реальных изменений кода" hints at a read-only analysis of actual diffs, but there is no word on side effects, whether results persist, what sessionId does, or how the modes differ behaviorally.

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?

It is short and not padded, but that brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency. The one useful signal (code change analysis) is there, but nothing is front-loaded about the required action parameter or the modes.

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 tool with five enumerated actions, six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a single vague line is wholly inadequate. An agent cannot determine how to choose an action or what to expect from any of them.

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?

Six parameters at 50% schema coverage, including two enums (five action values, three depth levels) that have no descriptions at all. The description adds zero meaning beyond the schema — the five action values are the most important semantic gap and go entirely unexplained.

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 is essentially a restatement of the name/title ("Impact" → "Code Impact Analyzer") plus the vague tagline "анализ реальных изменений кода". It never mentions the five distinct operations (analyze, compare, reflect, patterns, history) that define what the tool actually does, so an agent cannot tell it apart from siblings like mcp_m7_analyze_task or mcp_m7_validate_implementation.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the ~35 sibling tools. The agent is left to infer everything from the tool name alone.

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