chats_unpin

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds only transport plumbing (POST path, gRPC method, socket event) and says nothing agent-relevant such as idempotency or behavior when the chat is not pinned.

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?

One short front-loaded sentence plus a brief transport parenthetical; there is no filler and the core action leads. The endpoint/gRPC/socket detail is arguably noise for an agent but is kept compact.

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 mutation tool with two undocumented required parameters and no output schema, the description should say more about prerequisites, idempotency, or failure modes. Annotations cover safety only, leaving the operational picture thin.

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 neither chatId nor channelId is explained in the description; only example values exist in the schema. The names and examples are largely self-explanatory, but the description contributes nothing to distinguishing the two identifiers or their scope.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Unpin a chat'), which clearly distinguishes it from its sibling chats_pin. It does not, however, state scope or context (e.g., that it operates on a chat within a channel), so it is clear but minimally differentiated.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the natural alternative (chats_pin) or of preconditions such as the chat actually being pinned. Usage is only inferable from the tool name.

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