wb_card_recommendations_set

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states that the operation is a set/mutation and includes the max-10 limit, but it does not explain whether the list replaces existing recommendations, what happens if more than 10 nmIDs are provided, or any validation/error behavior. For a mutating tool with no annotation support, this is a significant gap.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence that communicates the core action, target, and a key limit. The Russian parenthetical adds minor contextual noise but does not significantly harm clarity or structure.

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 is simple with only two required parameters, and the schema plus description are enough to infer the basic call shape. However, because there is no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves out important behavioral context such as overwrite semantics, error handling, and response expectations, making it only minimally complete.

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 links 'card' to nm_id and 'recommended goods' to recommended_nm_ids, and adds the max-10 constraint. However, it does not explicitly define each parameter's role or mention constraints like whether duplicate or invalid nmIDs are allowed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Set') and names the resource ('recommended goods on a card'), making the action and target unambiguous. Adding the 'max 10 nmID' constraint further pins down the tool's scope and differentiates it from siblings like wb_card_recommendations_get.

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 makes the usage context clear: this tool is for setting recommended goods on a card. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the 'Set' framing and the obvious sibling wb_card_recommendations_get provide enough context for an agent to select it correctly.

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