tg_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 mentions the dual action (pin or unpin) and clarifies that it does not affect chat order. However, it omits other behavioral traits such as whether pinning replaces an existing pinned message, whether the 'notify' parameter sends a service message, or any permission requirements. The basic action is clear, but deeper behavioral context is missing.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the action, and contains no filler. Every phrase is purposeful: the first sentence states the operation, the second disambiguates from a sibling. This is exemplary conciseness.

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 has 4 parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, the description is too sparse to provide complete context. It explains the core purpose and differentiates from tg_pin, but it does not address the 'notify' parameter semantics or any operational side effects. While an output schema exists, the missing parameter guidance makes the description incomplete for reliable 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 description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. The description implicitly maps 'chat' and 'message_id' via 'one message inside a chat' and mentions the 'unpin' boolean through 'or unpin', but it does not explain the 'notify' parameter at all. The description adds some meaning but leaves a significant gap for a four-parameter tool.

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) one message inside a chat.' It specifies the resource (a message) and scope (inside a chat), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool tg_pin, which pins the entire chat. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicitly contrasts this tool with tg_pin ('This is different from tg_pin, which pins the whole chat to the top of your dialog list.'), thereby telling the agent when to use this tool (pinning a specific message) and when not to use it (pinning the whole chat instead). This is exactly the level of guidance expected.

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