tg_pin

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden, but it only states the basic action. It does not disclose potential side effects like whether pinning a new chat unpins a previously pinned one, whether multiple chats can be pinned, or any permission requirements. This is a significant gap for an AI agent.

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, clear sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the action and object, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simple two-parameter tool, the description gives the core purpose, but it lacks critical context such as chat parameter format and behavioral nuances. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but without annotations and with minimal description, the tool is not fully specified for an agent to invoke unboundedly.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implicitly maps 'chat' and 'unpin' to the parameters but provides no details on chat identifier format (e.g., ID, username) or the effect of the unpin flag. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Pin') and resource ('a chat') and clearly states the dual functionality ('or unpin it'). It differentiates from sibling tg_pin_message by specifying 'chat' and 'top of the list', making the primary purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage for pinning/unpinning a chat but provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions. It does not mention tg_pin_message or other relevant tools, so the guidance is only implied.

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