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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the operation is reversible, sends no message, deletes nothing, and the already_in_state case returns an explanatory response. These are exactly the traits an agent needs before invoking a mutation, and they extend rather than restate idempotentHint/destructiveHint.

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?

Four short clauses, zero padding, with the core effect front-loaded and the idempotency note placed after the safety guarantees.

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 single-parameter, non-destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers effect, safety, scope requirement and the degenerate already_in_state response. Only error cases (e.g. unknown conversation_id) are unaddressed, 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?

Only one parameter (conversation_id) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no syntax or format detail, which is fine at this baseline but is not a value-add.

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?

States a precise verb and resource: 'Retire l'épingle : la conversation revient au classement automatique', plus the scope ('Conversation à deux ou groupe'). The inverse relationship to ficiel_pin_conversation is legible from the verb, though the sibling is never named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb (unpin when a conversation should return to automatic ranking) and a prerequisite is given ('Portée « write » requise'). But it never names an alternative tool or a when-not-to-use condition.

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