tg_pin

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

Annotations already establish that the tool is mutating, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the 'top of the list' behavior and the unpin capability, but does not disclose additional behavioral context such as whether pinning displaces other pinned chats, permission requirements, or effects on list ordering beyond the basic statement.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the core operation, and it is appropriately compact for a tool with only two simple parameters.

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 pin/unpin action, the description conveys the core operation and the annotations cover safety and idempotence. However, it lacks any disambiguation from tg_pin_message and provides no detail about the 'chat' parameter format, which an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly in a realistic context.

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 undocumented parameters. It indirectly explains the unpin boolean through 'or unpin it,' but it does not clarify the expected format or identity semantics for the required 'chat' parameter, nor does it explain the default behavior of unpin when omitted.

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 and resource: 'Pin a chat to the top of the list, or unpin it.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling tg_pin_message by specifying 'chat' rather than 'message,' so an agent can tell them apart without inspecting schemas.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tg_pin_message, tg_archive, or tg_mute. The operation is stated, but no context is provided about prerequisites, exclusions, or which sibling tool should be used for pinning messages instead of chats.

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