unpin_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the ID-acquisition dependency and the ID-type pitfall, but says nothing about required permissions, error behavior for an unpinned message, or reversibility via pin_message. For a mutation tool with no annotation coverage that leaves real gaps.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded before the caveat, and every clause earns its place by either stating the action or preventing a likely calling error.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the critical calling pitfall. What is missing is only peripheral: permission/error behavior and confirmation of what unpinning does to the pin list.

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 the non-obvious parameter (pinned_message_info_id, sourced from list_pinned_messages, explicitly NOT the message_id), which is exactly the trap an agent would fall into. chat_id is left undocumented, but its meaning is self-evident.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Unpin a message from a chat"), so the operation is unambiguous. It implicitly distinguishes itself from message_id-based siblings by warning against passing a message_id, but it never names pin_message, the tool that reverses it, so sibling differentiation is partial.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite: call list_pinned_messages first to obtain the pinned_message_info_id. That is actionable sequencing guidance rather than vague context. It stops short of stating when not to use this tool or what happens when the message isn't currently pinned.

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