unpin_thread

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly states the effect (unpins from course feed) but does not disclose permissions, reversibility, or error conditions. This is adequate for a simple action but lacks depth compared to well-documented mutation tools.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single clear sentence plus a parameter doc line. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff or redundant 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 simple unpin operation with one parameter and an output schema present, the description is mostly complete. It covers the action and parameter source, but does not mention any permission requirements or the relationship to pin_thread. Given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor gap.

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 only shows thread_id as an integer with a title. The description adds valuable context by specifying it is 'the global thread ID' and tells where to obtain it ('from list_threads or search_threads'), which compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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: 'Unpin a thread from the top of the course feed.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the phrase 'from the top of the course feed' distinguishes it from sibling tools like pin_thread, lock_thread, etc.

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 context by specifying the action on a thread and telling the user to pass a thread_id from list_threads or search_threads. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the existence of pin_thread and the verb 'unpin' make the intended usage evident.

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