Add workspace pin

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), but the description adds little beyond that. Terms like 'attributable' and 'safe' hint at requirements, but there is no disclosure of side effects, permission needs, or the effect of reusing idempotency_key (which the schema partially covers but the description does not).

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary detail.

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?

With 9 parameters and no output schema, this tool is complex, yet the description only gives the basic purpose. It omits required parameters, coordinate semantics, surface options, version_id usage, and return behavior, making it inadequate for an agent to use the tool confidently.

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 only 11%, so the description must compensate for the 9 parameters. It only indirectly hints at the 'kind' and 'url' parameters via 'note or safe http(s) link', leaving project_id, version_id, x, y, surface, and label unexplained. This is insufficient for proper parameter understanding.

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 ('Add') and the resource ('an attributable note or safe http(s) link to the shared project workspace'). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like list_project_pins and remove_project_pin, which serve different operations on the same resource.

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 implies this tool is for adding pins, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention exclusions. No direct reference to list_project_pins or remove_project_pin is provided, so guidance is only implicit.

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