unpin_message

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds real context: the moderator-rights prerequisite and the non-obvious behavior that Talk remembers only one hidden pin per conversation (hiding another re-shows the previous one). This is meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond the annotations.

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?

Uses a clean Args/Returns structure that is front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence earns its place, though the structured blocks are slightly more verbose than strictly necessary.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, permission prerequisites, per-parameter semantics, and an edge-case quirk. Nothing an agent needs to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does so well: it explains token, message_id, and especially the for_everyone default plus its edge-case behavior. Each parameter's meaning is clear beyond what the bare schema provides.

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 and resource ('Unpin a message') and immediately distinguishes the two operating scopes (for everyone vs. only your own view). An agent can identify the operation and its modes without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear context on when each mode applies (for_everyone requires moderator rights) and the effect of the default. It does not explicitly name the counterpart tool pin_message or state when not to use this one, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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