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

Goes well beyond the annotations to disclose what they cannot: the author is notified on removal and the soc is kept in the modlog, the 3-pin cap with a 409 pin_limit error, a 60/minute rate limit, and the auth signing requirement. Annotations only give the generic destructive/idempotent flags, so this added context is high value.

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?

Very tight and front-loaded: purpose first, then behaviors, limits, permission, and return value. It is somewhat crammed into one dense run-on with parentheticals, but essentially every clause earns its place.

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 5-param destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers what matters: auth/signature, permission level, side effects (author notification, modlog), capacity limit and its error code, and the return shape ({pinned}). Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so all five parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description's 'kept in the modlog' repeats the reason field's schema text rather than adding new meaning, so it does not clearly exceed the baseline.

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+resource ('Act on a soc on a socnet group's wall') and enumerates the three concrete actions (remove/pin/unpin), including replies. This distinguishes it from siblings like moderate_page_post, moderate_group_member, and social_pin without needing to open any schema.

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 the authorization precondition ('A moderator or higher') and the action set, which is clear invocation context. It does not, however, name when to prefer a sibling tool (e.g. social_pin for feed posts vs. this group-wall pin) or any explicit when-not conditions.

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