Pin or unpin message

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

The description discloses that the operation is reversible ('easy to roll back') and that the semantics are verified. Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only, idempotent, or destructive, and the description adds value by confirming the single-call behavior and the conditional pin/unpin logic.

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 very concise, consisting of two short sentences that contain no redundant information. Every word adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the main action.

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 low parameter count, full schema coverage, and presence of annotations, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool. The behavior for both cases is clearly explained.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining that providing message_id pins the message and omitting it unpins, which goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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 clearly states the action (pin or unpin a message) and the resource (message) with a specific verb. It distinguishes from sibling tools as no other sibling performs pinning. The Russian language may be a barrier for non-Russian agents, but given the tool name and title are English, it's assumed the agent understands.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use the tool: to pin or unpin a message in a single call. It explains the behavior based on the presence of message_id. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, though no direct competitors exist among siblings.

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