wb_feedbacks_pins_set

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It does reveal the 'max 3 per nmID' limit, which is useful, but it does not explain whether this replaces existing pins, what happens when the limit is exceeded, whether the operation is idempotent, or any error/authorization implications.

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 with the key constraint front-loaded and a helpful Russian gloss. There is no filler or redundant repetition of the tool name.

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, but because there are no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden. It omits important usage context around the pin limit, side effects, and how to handle existing pins, leaving an agent under-informed for a mutating operation.

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 should compensate for the undocumented feedback_ids parameter. It only says 'Pin feedbacks' and mentions the per-nmID limit, but does not clarify what feedback_ids should contain, how they map to nmIDs, or whether all three pins can be set in a single call.

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 ('Pin feedbacks') and the resource affected, while adding a specific constraint ('max 3 per nmID'). This also distinguishes it from sibling tools like wb_feedbacks_pins_delete and wb_feedbacks_pins_count, since it is the 'set' operation for pinning.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wb_feedbacks_pins, wb_feedbacks_pins_count, or wb_feedbacks_pins_delete. The limit note implies a rule, but the description does not explain when the agent should check current pins, delete pins, or avoid calling this tool.

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