pin_message

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

Annotations already declare this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds context about the notify behavior (sends notifications) and pm_oneside (PM-only self-pin), but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as whether an existing pin is replaced.

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: two clear sentences. The main action is front-loaded, followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence carries useful information without redundancy.

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 pin operation with an output schema present, the description adequately covers the core action and the non-default parameter behaviors. However, it lacks details on defaults (though schema provides them), edge cases, and the meaning of chat/message_id, making it only minimally complete.

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. It explains notify and pm_oneside, but omits the required parameters chat and message_id. Chat has an ambiguous type (anyOf integer/string) and message_id lacks any format context, leaving essential params poorly specified.

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 uses a specific verb 'Закрепить' (pin) and resource 'сообщение в чате' (message in chat), clearly indicating the action and its target. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool unpin_message without needing explicit contrast.

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 usage context is implied: pinning is a well-known chat operation. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like unpin_message, and no mention of exclusions or prerequisites.

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