unpin_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the effect (removing from header) and prerequisites but does not elaborate on whether the action is reversible, permissions needed, or if the message is otherwise affected. Adequate but could be more explicit.

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 sentences, front-loaded with action and effect. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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 tool, the description together with the schema is complete. It tells the agent what it does, what parameters are needed, and where to get them. No output schema is needed for this operation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, and the description adds meaning by explaining the mutual exclusivity of recipient and group_id, and how to obtain target_author and target_timestamp from get_conversation. This goes beyond the 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 clearly states the purpose: 'Unpin a previously pinned message in a DM or group conversation, removing it from the conversation header.' It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from sibling tools like pin_message.

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 clear usage guidance: specify recipient for DMs or group_id for groups, and get target_author/target_timestamp from get_conversation. It also references the alternative pin_message. However, it does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or mention when not to use.

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