nexus_unpin_comment

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the authorization model and the result shape (JSON with {comment: {id}} or an error string). Annotations already mark this as a non-read, non-destructive, idempotent mutation, so the description adds useful context without contradicting them.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with the core verb and resource. The permission and return-format notes are useful and there is no filler. 'via v2 GraphQL' is slightly redundant with the title but not harmful.

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?

The tool has one well-documented parameter, an output schema, and annotations covering idempotency and destructiveness; the description adds the missing auth condition and error behavior. Nothing required to select or invoke the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100%; comment_id is already described as 'Comment ID to unpin' with type and minimum. The description adds no new parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete action—'Unpin a previously pinned comment'—and names the mechanism (v2 GraphQL). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling nexus_pin_comment and from other mutable comment actions like hide/lock.

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?

It states the permission prerequisite ('requires moderator permissions or thread ownership') and implies the precondition that the comment must already be pinned. It does not explicitly enumerate when to prefer alternatives, but the action and sibling names make the choice reasonably clear.

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