pin_forum_topic

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation, so the description carries little extra behavioral burden. It adds the 'pin/unpin' dual action and 'in header' scope, but does not disclose side effects, defaults (e.g., pinned=true), or what happens if the topic is already pinned. This is minimal value beyond the annotations.

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 concise sentence with no redundancy, which is easy to parse. However, it is under-specified for a tool with three parameters, and the lack of detail slightly detracts from its effectiveness, though it remains appropriately front-loaded with the action.

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 tool has three parameters and is a write operation, the description is far too sparse. It fails to explain how to unpin (set pinned=false), the role of `chat`, or how this tool relates to siblings like `reorder_pinned_forum_topics`. An output schema exists but is not described, leaving the agent without sufficient context to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate for explaining parameters. It only hints at 'тему' (topic) aligning with `topic_id` and the pin/unpin concept implying `pinned`, but completely omits `chat`. There is no explanation of what `chat` refers to (e.g., the forum) or how the parameters interact.

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 tool's purpose: pin/unpin a forum topic in the header. It uses a specific verb ('pin/unpin') with a specific resource ('topic'), and the 'in header' qualifier distinguishes it from sibling tools like pin_message or pin_dialog. This makes the tool's intent unambiguous.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it doesn't mention that the `pinned` parameter controls whether to pin or unpin, nor does it contrast with `reorder_pinned_forum_topics`. There is no indication of prerequisites or context that would help an agent choose this tool.

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