wb_feedbacks_pins

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. The phrase 'shown first on the card' weakly hints at read/display ordering, but it does not clarify whether this endpoint retrieves, creates, updates, or deletes pins, nor whether it has side effects. The behavioral context is minimal and ambiguous.

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 short, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. The parenthetical Russian translation is redundant, and the main text is a fragment that omits the core action of the tool. It does not earn its place because it fails to convey the operation despite its brevity.

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?

Given the family of sibling pin tools (set, delete, count), the description is too ambiguous for an agent to select this tool correctly. There is no output schema and no behavior detail, so the agent cannot confidently distinguish this operation from related pin or feedback listing tools.

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 input schema is empty with zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this dimension should be rated favorably since no parameter documentation is needed.

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 'Pinned feedbacks shown first on the card (закреплённые отзывы)' is a noun phrase describing display ordering, not an API action. It lacks any verb such as 'get', 'list', 'set', or 'delete', so the agent cannot tell what operation this tool performs. It is not a pure tautology but is vague and does not distinguish itself from sibling pin-management tools.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like wb_feedbacks_pins_set, wb_feedbacks_pins_delete, wb_feedbacks_pins_count, or wb_feedbacks_list. The description names no context, exclusions, or alternative selection criteria, leaving the agent to guess based on 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.