pin_channel_message_api_v1_channels

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

The description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the name. No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It fails to mention idempotency, whether it toggles pin status (though 'is_pinned' suggests setting), rate limits, permissions, or side effects like notifications. The brevity leaves the agent uninformed about crucial behavioral aspects.

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 extremely concise (two words), but it sacrifices informativeness. It is front-loaded but under-specified for a 3-parameter tool with no annotations. Every sentence should earn its place; here, the single phrase 'Pin Channel Message' is insufficient to guide effective tool use.

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?

Given the complexity (3 required params, no annotations, no output schema description despite having one), the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or prerequisites. A complete description would address these gaps, but this one lacks critical context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but does not. The parameters 'id', 'message_id', and 'is_pinned' are listed in the schema but their meaning is not elaborated. While names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no value, leaving the agent to infer semantics without guidance.

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 'Pin Channel Message' clearly states the action (pin) and the resource (channel message). It is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_channel_by_id' or 'add_reaction_to_message', but the action of pinning is distinct enough.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'unpin_channel_message' or 'get_pinned_channel_messages'. It also lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., channel and message existence) or when pinning is appropriate.

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