wb_feedbacks_pins_delete

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 only says 'Unpin feedbacks' and does not explain side effects, reversibility, idempotency, partial-failure behavior, or whether feedback_ids must already be pinned. The mutating nature is implied but not elaborated.

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, consisting of a single clear sentence with a redundant but harmless Russian translation. It is front-loaded and contains no filler. It earns a high score for efficiency, though it sacrifices some informational depth.

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?

Although the tool is simple (one array parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too sparse to fully equip an agent. Missing context includes what unpinning entails, whether it is destructive, how errors are reported, and any prerequisite conditions.

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 the undocumented 'feedback_ids' parameter. It does not. The description gives no additional meaning beyond the parameter's name, such as the expected format, constraints, or relationship to the unpin action.

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 ('Unpin') and a clear resource ('feedbacks'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It also differentiates itself from sibling tools like wb_feedbacks_pins_set (pin) and wb_feedbacks_pins (list) by stating the inverse operation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states the action without mentioning related tools such as wb_feedbacks_pins_set or conditions that would make this tool appropriate. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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