Call any Pinterest API endpoint

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the read/write classification rule (GET and read-only POSTs are reads), that writes are audited, that writes follow dry-run and require confirm='APPLY', that OAuth endpoints are blocked, and the important limitation that the tool can't verify what it changes. That is exactly the operational context annotations alone (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true) cannot convey.

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 purpose and the exclusion rule are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by path formatting, then the write-safety contract. Every sentence adds a fact an agent needs to call the tool correctly, with no restatement of the name or schema.

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 an open-ended passthrough with no output schema, the description covers the calling contract (path format, read/write classification, confirm token, audit, dry-run, OAuth exclusion) well. It stops short of saying what a response or error looks like, and does not point at pinterest_ads_read_request as the read-only alternative.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does for the two required parameters: path is defined as relative to the v5 base, must start with '/', with a worked example; method is given meaning via the read/write rule; confirm's exact sentinel value 'APPLY' is spelled out. body and query are only implied, which is the remaining gap.

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 concrete verb and resource ("Call any Pinterest API v5 endpoint") and immediately scopes it with "the other tools don't cover", then enumerates the concrete gaps (lead forms, ad previews, labels, schedules, conversion events, async customer list uploads). This lets an agent distinguish it from the ~70 specific siblings without opening a 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 a clear selection rule: use this only for endpoints the dedicated tools don't cover, and it names example areas that fall in that gap. It does not, however, route the agent to the obvious sibling alternative pinterest_ads_read_request for read-shaped calls, so an agent may use this heavier tool when a narrower one exists.

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