waha_pin_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action and effect but omits critical details: whether pinning requires specific permissions (e.g., admin rights in groups), if it's reversible (implied by 'waha_unpin_message' sibling), rate limits, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 two concise sentences that efficiently convey the core purpose and effect without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the main action, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 complexity of a mutation tool (pinning messages) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on permissions, side effects, error handling, and return values, which are crucial for safe and effective tool invocation. The schema covers parameters well, but behavioral aspects are underspecified.

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 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in the input schema (e.g., 'Chat ID (format: number@c.us)', 'Pin duration in seconds (default: 86400 = 24 hours)'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Pin a message') and resource ('in a chat'), with a brief explanation of the effect ('Pinned messages appear at the top of the chat'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'waha_unpin_message' by specifying the opposite action, though not explicitly. However, it lacks explicit sibling differentiation, keeping it at 4 instead of 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing admin rights in a group chat), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'waha_star_message' (which might bookmark rather than pin). Without such context, the agent lacks clear usage direction.

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