wb_question_reply

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that reject=true declines the question, which is a meaningful behavior beyond the schema. However, it does not mention authentication needs, side effects on question status, or response/return behavior.

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 main clause is concise and front-loaded, and the reject behavior is stated efficiently. The parenthetical Russian translation adds minor redundancy but does not significantly harm clarity.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description does not explain what happens after replying or rejecting, whether text is still required when reject=true, or what response the caller should expect. The description is adequate for basic selection but incomplete for confident 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the meaning of reject, but leaves question_id and text to be inferred from their names. The required fields and the relationship between text and reject=true are not explicitly explained.

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 'Reply' with a specific resource 'buyer question', and adds the key behavior 'reject=true declines it'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like wb_feedback_reply and wb_return_answer, which target different resources.

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 implies the tool is for replying to buyer questions, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. The context is clear from the verb and resource, but no sibling routing or conditional guidance is provided.

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