unpin

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It explains audit logging, how omitted/None reasons are handled, the unpin_noop outcome for no-op calls, and the precise meaning of `unpinned: true`. This is rich, honest behavioral disclosure beyond the schema.

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 and front-loaded with the core action, followed by tightly packed behavioral details. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy or 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?

For a two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the main action, reason semantics, idempotent no-op behavior, audit handling, and response-field interpretation, leaving little ambiguity for an agent deciding to call and interpret the tool.

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 must compensate. It does an excellent job explaining the `reason` parameter, including nullability, compatibility, and audit implications. The `memory_id` parameter is not explicitly described, but its meaning is strongly implied by the tool name and the mention of unknown IDs, making the gap minor.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Remove anchor status' clearly identifies what unpin does. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by stating it preserves the memory, which separates it from destructive tools like forget, and the audit behavior sets it apart from simple state mutations.

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 gives clear context: unpin is for removing anchor status while preserving the memory, implying when it should be used versus deleting/forgetting the memory. It also covers idempotent use on already-unpinned or unknown IDs. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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