pin_memory

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

Discloses side effects: boosts importance to 0.95, writes pin asset file, indexes it. With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility and covers key behavioral impacts. Could mention if pinning makes a memory non-deletable, but current detail is sufficient.

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?

Two sentences, zero wasted words. First sentence defines action and side effects; second sentence states when to use. Information is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Covers purpose, usage, and side effects. No output schema exists, but return value is not critical. Missing edge cases like memory not found or duplicate pinning, but overall adequate for agent invocation.

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% with descriptions for all 8 parameters. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 resulting state ('high-importance reusable asset'), and the specific side effects (boosts importance to 0.95, writes asset file, indexes it). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'list_pins' and 'store_memory' by focusing on pinning an existing 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?

Explicitly instructs 'Use when a search result is critical and should be surfaced in future recalls,' providing clear context. Does not mention when not to use or alternative tools, but guidance is direct and actionable.

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