wb_feedbacks_actions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the action type but not side effects, permissions, whether the complaint is submitted immediately, what happens to the feedback, or how the valuation codes are obtained and validated.

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 efficient sentence with no filler, and the Russian parenthetical adds clarity for the intended audience. The phrase 'codes from supplier-valuations' is slightly cryptic but not redundant.

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 3-parameter action tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no enums, the description leaves important operational details unstated: where supplier-valuation codes come from, whether product_valuation and feedback_valuation are mutually exclusive, and what side effects occur. The tool's behavior is too ambiguous for reliable invocation.

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?

The schema already describes product_valuation as 'product problem' and feedback_valuation as 'complaint reason'; the description adds that these are supplier-valuation codes, which is useful. But feedback_id is not explained beyond its name, and the code source is vague.

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 states a concrete action ('Complain about a feedback or report a product problem') and identifies the resource (feedback/product) with a clarifying Russian gloss. It is not a tautology and broadly distinguishes the tool from read/list feedback tools, though the name 'actions' remains generic.

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 intended use case is implied: use this when needing to complain about a feedback or report a product problem. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives like wb_feedback_reply or wb_feedback_order_return, and the relationship to sibling feedback tools is left to inference.

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