telegram_pin_chatPin or unpin a chat in your own dialog list, not a message, without affecting other members.
Pin or unpin a chat in your own dialog list (not a message — use telegram_pin_message for that). Local to the account: nothing changes for other members.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chat | Yes | ||
| pinned | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description carries the substantive burden and delivers: it discloses that the effect is account-local and invisible to other members. It does not state permission requirements or reversibility, but the scope disclosure is the key behavioral fact an agent needs.
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?
Two tightly written sentences with the core action and the sibling exclusion front-loaded, and zero filler. Every clause carries information.
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 small mutation tool with no output schema the description covers scope well, but with 0% parameter coverage it leaves the chat identifier and the pinned toggle undocumented, which is a meaningful gap for correct invocation.
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 documents neither parameter, and the description does not compensate. It never explains the 'chat' identifier format (id vs username) or that 'pinned' is a boolean defaulting to true controlling the toggle direction.
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 (pin/unpin) and resource (a chat in the dialog list), and explicitly disambiguates from the message-pinning sibling telegram_pin_message. An agent can distinguish this from telegram_pin_message and telegram_unpin_all without opening any 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?
Explicitly names the condition that routes elsewhere ('not a message — use telegram_pin_message for that'), which is a real when-not plus the alternative. It does not, however, address the nearby telegram_unpin_all sibling or when to prefer this over bulk unpinning.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.