reorder_pinned_forum_topics

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

The description discloses the key behavioral trait of the force parameter: when true, it unpins topics not listed. This goes beyond the annotations (which only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false) by explaining a specific side effect. It does not describe other details, but the additional force behavior is valuable and consistent with annotations. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 concise and front-loaded, starting with a one-sentence summary followed by a short Args list. Every sentence conveys necessary information without surplus. It is structured efficiently for quick comprehension, avoiding unnecessary details.

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?

The description covers the primary action, the force behavior, and the key parameters. It does not explain the chat parameter, which is required, but the tool has an output schema so return values are not needed. Given the moderate complexity (3 parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of annotations, the description is mostly complete, with the chat parameter being the main omission.

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 description explains two of the three parameters: topic_ids_in_order (IDs in desired order) and force (unpin unlisted topics). However, it omits the required chat parameter entirely, and since schema description coverage is 0%, the description must compensate for all parameters. It partially does so by defining the two most semantically interesting parameters, but the missing chat context leaves a gap.

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 function: "Переставить порядок закреплённых тем" (Rearrange the order of pinned topics). It uses a specific verb (reorder) and identifies the resource (pinned forum topics), distinguishing it from sibling tools like pin_forum_topic (which pins) and get_forum_topics (which lists). The purpose is 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 implies the tool is used to reorder pinned topics and includes a parameter (force) that affects whether unpinned topics are removed, providing context on alternative behaviors. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over similar tools like pin_forum_topic or get_forum_topics, nor does it provide exclusions. The clear name and description make usage fairly evident, but explicit guidance on alternatives is missing.

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