Изменить сопоставление контрагентов

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-idempotent write. The description adds a key behavioral detail—only passed settings are changed, not a full replacement. However, it doesn't explain what happens to omitted settings, whether existing reconciliations are affected, or permission requirements. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 core mutation behavior. The constraints are stated compactly. No wasted words, though the dependency between phone/email matching and the corresponding variables could be slightly clearer in ordering.

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 8 parameters at 13% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the most important behavioral constraints but leaves several parameters undocumented (case, mode, create_unmatched, match_platform_id) and doesn't explain the response or side effects. It's minimally complete but has clear gaps.

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 coverage is only 13%, so the description must carry the load for 8 parameters. It does well: it explains the automatic-mode criteria constraint and the dependency that email_variable/phone_variable must be non-empty when matching is enabled. It doesn't explain case resolution, manual mode, or the boolean toggles like create_unmatched and match_platform_id, leaving gaps, but the critical conditional logic is covered.

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 says it changes only the transferred settings, and the title ('Изменить сопоставление контрагентов') names a specific action and resource. It's clear this is a settings-save tool, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling counterparties_settings (which likely reads settings).

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?

The description provides real when-to-use guidance: it names the alternative counterparties_reconcile for processing existing dialogs, and it implies this tool is for changing settings rather than reconciling. However, it doesn't state when to use manual vs automatic mode beyond the single criterion for automatic.

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