pin_reply

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

The description only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits such as reversibility, permissions required, side effects (e.g., notifications), or error conditions. With no annotations to compensate, the transparency is insufficient for an agent to safely reason about consequences.

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 sentence, making it highly concise. However, the brevity comes at the cost of omitting important details, slightly reducing its effectiveness. It is well-structured for readability but not fully informative.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and the simple but opaque nature of the tool, the description is too minimal. It fails to explain what pinning a reply means, the expected outcome, or any necessary context like ownership requirements. An output schema exists but is not referenced.

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 single parameter 'tweet_id' is an integer, but the description provides no additional meaning beyond the parameter name. With schema description coverage at 0%, the agent must rely solely on the parameter name, which is vague. The description could clarify that this is the ID of the reply to be pinned.

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 verb 'pin' and the resource 'reply' in the context of a conversation, making the basic action understandable. However, it lacks differentiation from sibling tool 'pin_tweet', which also pins content, and does not explain what pinning a reply specifically entails.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use 'pin_reply' versus alternatives like 'pin_tweet' or 'unpin_reply'. There are no prerequisites, conditions, or scenarios described, leaving the agent without context for appropriate invocation.

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