⚠️ Ответить на отзыв

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint: true. The description adds that the reply is public and visible to buyers, which is useful. However, it does not detail side effects like irreversibility or permission requirements. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise with one sentence and a warning, no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key point. Could be slightly longer for completeness but efficient.

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 description lacks information about the return value or response format, which is important for a destructive tool. No output schema exists, so the burden is on the description. Given the complexity (idempotency, dry run), this gap is significant.

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 coverage is 100% and all parameters have good descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it's a public reply to a review visible to buyers, distinguishing it from sibling tools like reviews_remove_review_answer_v1. The verb 'Ответить' and resource 'отзыв' are clear, but the description could be more explicit about creating an answer.

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 warning 'Подтверждайте у пользователя' provides some guidance on when to use (with user confirmation), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use compared to alternatives. The context is minimal.

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