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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, so the sentence 'Repeating the call with the same input leaves the same result' restates structured data rather than adding context. More importantly, destructiveHint=true is declared but the description never explains what is destructive about unpinning (does the contact leave the board, lose ordering, lose a stage?), and it never says which value of the boolean pins vs unpins.

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 with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is largely redundant against the idempotent annotation, but the description remains tight overall.

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?

This is a destructive, nested-parameter mutation with no output schema and no parameter documentation, so the description should do much more. An agent still cannot tell which input value pins versus unpins, what is lost on unpin, or how this differs from the other contact-moving tools in the family.

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% for two required parameters, including a nested body object, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails it. It never states that body.pinned=true pins and false unpins, nor what params.engagementId identifies or where to obtain it.

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 pair (pins/unpins) and a specific resource (a contact on the contact pipeline board), which is enough to separate it from pinDeal or moveContact by resource alone. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it stops short of a 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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as moveContact, moveContacts, or pinDeal. The only usage signal is the tool name and the phrase 'on the contact pipeline board', which an agent must infer from.

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