pin_memory

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It transparently discloses side effects: boosts importance to 0.95, writes a pin asset file, and indexes it. This goes beyond a simple operation statement and informs the agent of potential impacts.

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 concise with three short sentences. It front-loads the main action in the first sentence and provides key usage and side-effect information in subsequent sentences. No unnecessary words.

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 no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, side effects, and usage context. It does not describe return values or error conditions, but for a side-effect-driven tool like pinning, the description is adequately complete for an agent to understand what happens.

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 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description does not add additional meaning to the parameters beyond the schema, but it is not required to do so. A score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not detract from 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 (pin a retrieved memory), the result (high-importance reusable asset on disk), and specific side effects (boosts importance, writes file, indexes). It distinguishes pin_memory from siblings like list_pins and promote_memory by focusing on marking a specific memory for future recall.

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 explicitly says 'Use when a search result is critical and should be surfaced in future recalls,' which provides clear guidance on when to use. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternative tools, but the context is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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