Кабинет продавца WB: ответить на вопрос

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent write operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the answer becomes publicly visible on WB, user consent is required, and a non-read-only token is needed. There is no contradiction with the 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?

Two short, purposeful sentences: the operation comes first, then the consent requirement, then the authorization prerequisite. There is no filler, no repetition of schema fields, and the important constraints are front-loaded.

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 two-parameter mutating tool, the description covers the purpose, public visibility of the outcome, the consent prerequisite, and the required auth scope. It does not describe the response or confirmation behavior, but with no output schema and a simple publish action, that is a minor gap.

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?

The schema documents 'id' well ('id вопроса из wb_seller_questions'), but 'text' has no semantic description beyond min/max length. The description mentions showing 'текст' to the user, indirectly identifying it as the answer content, but it does not explicitly map both parameters or add format guidance. At 50% schema coverage, the description only partially compensates.

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 opens with a specific verb 'Публикует' and a specific resource: a seller's answer to a buyer's question. It also notes the answer is visible to all on WB, and the mention of 'вопрос покупателя' distinguishes this from the sibling wb_seller_answer_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 a clear precondition: show the text to the user and obtain consent before calling. It also states the required token scope ('Отзывы и вопросы', not read-only). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the usage context is reasonably clear.

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