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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive, and the description's language is consistent. It adds useful context about the default pinned value and bulk support, but it does not disclose the effect of the 'unsafe' parameter or account selection.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core action and default behavior; the second adds batch capability. Every word 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?

The description covers the primary behavior and bulk execution, which is adequate for a simple mutation tool. However, with no output schema and zero schema-level descriptions, the unexplained 'account' and 'unsafe' parameters leave gaps in fully understanding how to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate. It explains the 'pinned' default and that 'note_ids' enables batched execution, but it leaves 'note_id', 'account', and 'unsafe' without meaningful semantic explanation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fixa ou desafixa') and a clear resource ('uma nota'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It also clarifies the default pinned state and is distinct from sibling tools like archive, trash, and restore.

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 intended use is implied: pin or unpin a note, with optional bulk support via note_ids. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as keep_archive_note or keep_trash_note.

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