pin_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action itself and gives no information about side effects, permissions, whether pinning replaces an existing pinned message, or failure modes. This falls well short of a transparent behavioral description.

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 very short and front-loaded, with no filler. However, given the absence of annotations and parameter documentation, the brevity reads as under-specification rather than appropriately concise guidance.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and a one-sentence description, the tool lacks contextual completeness. An agent is not told about return values, error conditions, behavioral implications, or how this tool relates to sibling tools like unpin_message.

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%, and the description does not explicitly explain chat_id or message_id. It loosely maps 'a chat' to chat_id and 'a message' to message_id, but provides no additional meaning, constraints, or validation context beyond the bare schema fields.

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 'Pin a message in a chat' uses a specific verb and resource (message in a chat), making the core function clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like unpin_message, but the action itself is unambiguous enough for an agent to understand 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of the inverse operation (unpin_message). The only usage signal is implicit in the phrase 'Pin a message in a chat', leaving an agent to infer context.

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