discord_pin_message

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively adds context beyond basic functionality by specifying permission requirements ('Requires Manage Messages') and a key constraint ('Channels max 50 pinned messages'), which are crucial for understanding limitations and prerequisites. It does not cover response format or error handling, but provides essential operational details.

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 and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey purpose, requirements, and a critical constraint without any wasted words. Every sentence adds value, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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's moderate complexity (a mutation operation with permissions and constraints), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is relatively complete. It covers the core action, prerequisites, and a key limitation, but lacks details on parameters, return values, or error cases. For a tool with these gaps, it provides sufficient context to use it correctly in most cases.

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 schema provides no parameter details. The description does not mention any parameters explicitly, failing to compensate for the coverage gap. However, the purpose implies parameters like channel_id and message_id, and the constraint about max pinned messages hints at potential outcomes, offering minimal semantic context. With 3 parameters and no schema descriptions, this is a baseline score.

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 a message') and resource ('in a channel'), using a specific verb and target. It distinguishes from siblings like 'discord_unpin_message' by specifying the opposite operation, and from other message-related tools like 'discord_edit_message' or 'discord_delete_message' by focusing on pinning.

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 explicit context for when to use it ('Pin a message in a channel') and includes prerequisites ('Requires Manage Messages'), which helps guide usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., 'discord_unpin_message' for unpinning), missing full sibling differentiation.

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