moltbook_unpin_post

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the moderator-only permission requirement, which is valuable, but omits whether the action is reversible, whether unpinning a non-pinned post is an error or a no-op, and what the response contains.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action, target, and permission constraint all appear immediately.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action, scope, and authorization. It could be more complete by noting idempotency or error behavior, but nothing essential for invoking it correctly is missing.

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 and it is fully described in the schema ('ID of the post to unpin'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about the postId format beyond what the schema already says, which is the expected baseline here.

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 specific verb (unpin) and resource (post in a submolt), which clearly separates it from moltbook_pin_post and other post-mutation siblings. It stops short of naming the inverse sibling explicitly, but the verb+resource pairing is unambiguous.

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 '(Moderator only)' qualifier gives an authorization condition, which is real usage context. However, it does not say when to use this versus moltbook_pin_post or moltbook_delete_post, nor what state the post must be in for unpinning to be valid.

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