wb_feedback_reply

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does usefully disclose that setting edit=true rewrites an existing reply, which is real behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, rate limits, or what happens on invalid feedback IDs, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded with the primary action, then the conditional edit behavior. Every element earns its place; the Russian gloss adds a small multilingual cue without creating bloat.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits expected response behavior, error conditions, prerequisites, and any side effects beyond the basic edit distinction. The absence of usage guidance also hurts completeness.

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 for all parameters. It only clarifies the edit flag ('edit=true rewrites an existing reply'); feedback_id and text are left to be inferred from their names and types. This is partial compensation, not sufficient for the coverage gap.

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 clearly states the action 'Reply to a feedback' and adds the key edit behavior ('edit=true rewrites an existing reply'). It is specific about the verb and resource, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like wb_question_reply or wb_return_answer, so it misses the top score.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool instead of other feedback/answer tools. The description implies it is for replying to feedback but does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives, so the agent must infer usage from the name and sibling list.

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