pin

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it is thorough: it explains the anchor's recall behavior, the warning on exceeding a soft limit, the PermissionError if corroboration is missing, and the prompt-injection rationale. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 longer than average but every section adds needed operational context: purpose, precondition, warning, and security requirement. It is front-loaded and logically organized, with no filler.

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 what the tool does, when it can be called, required dependencies, potential warnings, and an error condition. It does not specify the success return shape or quantify the 'soft limit', but this is a minor gap given no output schema exists.

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%, so the description compensates by explaining reason as a required declaration rather than an inference. memory_id is only minimally described, but its meaning as the identifier of an existing consolidated memory is clear from context.

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?

Clearly states a specific operation ('Mark a memory as an anchor'), identifies the resource (a consolidated memory), and explains the behavioral effect (always surfaced on recall, not ranked by recency or relevance). This differentiates it from generic recall/remember tools.

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 explicit preconditions: the memory must already be consolidated and promote() called first, and passing remarks are explicitly excluded. It also specifies the security-sensitive condition requiring corroborate(). It does not, however, name sibling alternatives such as unpin or flag_sensitive, so some routing is left to the agent.

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