Unpin Specific Message in Chat

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds a valuable operational requirement: TELEGRAM_SEND_ENABLED=true must be set. This goes beyond what the schema or annotations provide. No contradiction with annotations was found.

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 only three short sentences: purpose first, then the prerequisite, then the alternative tool. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant restating of schema details.

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 tool with two required parameters, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It covers the operation, the required environment flag, and the sibling alternative. The scope phrase 'chat or supergroup' is slightly narrower than the schema's broader chat_id description, but this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with detailed descriptions for chat_id, message_id, and account. The description's phrases 'specific message' and 'chat or supergroup' loosely mirror the schema but add no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb ('Unpin') and a specific resource ('a specific message from a chat or supergroup'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like pin_message. The direct mention of pin_message as the inverse also reinforces what this tool does and does not do.

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 context for use: removing a pinned message, and points to pin_message as the alternative operation when the goal is to pin instead. It also states the operational prerequisite TELEGRAM_SEND_ENABLED=true, which is useful guidance, though it does not enumerate exclusions or failure conditions.

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