remove_project_pinRemove a shared workspace pin by providing the project and pin IDs. This action clears the pin and is idempotent, so repeated calls do not cause errors.
Remove one shared workspace pin. The operation is idempotent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pin_id | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already specify idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true. The description echoes 'idempotent' but adds no new behavioral context—e.g., what permissions are needed, whether the pin must exist, or what the response looks like. It does not contradict annotations but also does not enrich them.
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 extremely concise at two sentences and front-loaded with the action. However, it sacrifices necessary parameter context, which could be added in a compact way without bloating the description.
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?
Given the simple tool (2 required params, no output schema), the description should at least mention the parameter roles and perhaps a prerequisite like listing pins first. Without this, the agent lacks guidance on how to construct a valid call, making the description incomplete for effective use.
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%—no parameter descriptions exist in the schema or the description. The description does not explain what project_id or pin_id represent, nor how they relate to each other. This is a critical gap for an agent to use the tool correctly, and the description fails to compensate.
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 'Remove' and the resource 'one shared workspace pin'. It is unambiguous and directly relates to the tool name. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like add_project_pin, though the opposite action is obvious.
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 when to use (when you need to remove a pin) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use or mention of alternatives like add_project_pin or list_project_pins as prerequisites. The agent must infer context from the tool name and siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.