Pin a message

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

The description offers no behavioral details beyond the core action. It does not disclose whether pinning replaces an existing pinned message, requires specific permissions, or triggers notifications. The annotations (idempotent, openWorld) provide minimal safety hints, but the description adds no value in explaining side effects or constraints.

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 a single, direct sentence with no redundant wording, making it concise and immediately readable. It front-loads the verb 'Pin' and names the resource. However, it is so brief that it omits important contextual information, though conciseness itself is not the issue.

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 tool has five parameters, two required, and no output schema, the description is too sparse to guide an agent effectively. It does not clarify return behavior, side effects, or how the parameters like silent and pmOneSide affect the operation. Annotations cover only idempotency and open-world assumptions, leaving much context unexplained.

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?

The description does not explain any of the five parameters, and schema description coverage is only 20%, applying only to pmOneSide. With low coverage, the description should compensate by outlining parameter roles and relationships, but it remains silent. Users must rely on the bare schema, which lacks descriptions for peer, messageId, silent, and accountId.

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 a message in the dialog' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'unpin_message'. However, the term 'dialog' is somewhat vague and does not clarify whether it applies to private chats, groups, or channels, preventing a perfect score.

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 action name and context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like unpin_message. The description does not mention any prerequisites or scenarios where pinning would be inappropriate.

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