Кабинет продавца WB: ответить на отзыв

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

Annotations already mark this as non-read-only and non-idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the reply is published publicly, user consent is required before invocation, and a specific WB_API_TOKEN scope ('Отзывы и вопросы', not read-only) is needed. This goes beyond the structured fields without contradicting them.

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 three short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, consent requirement, and auth prerequisite. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no redundant or filler content.

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?

For a simple two-parameter mutation tool, the description covers the essential operational context: what it does, the public visibility consequence, required consent, and token scope. It does not describe return values or error cases, but no output schema exists and those details are not necessary for correct 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 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters ('id' from wb_seller_feedbacks and 'text' of the reply). The description does not add significant extra meaning about parameter formats, constraints, or relationships beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific action ('Публикует ответ продавца на отзыв покупателя') with a clear resource and consequence: the reply will be publicly visible on WB. This differentiates it from sibling wb_seller_answer_question, which targets questions rather than feedback.

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 gives clear usage context: it should be used to publish a seller's reply to a customer review, and it explicitly instructs the agent to show the text to the user and get consent before calling. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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