set_item_pinned

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the backend body ({pinned: bool}), the return format ({"ok": true}), and explains the resolution of item_id from various reference forms. It could mention potential errors or side effects, but for a simple toggle operation, the information is adequate.

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 (roughly 80 words) and well-structured. It starts with the core purpose, then details parameter semantics, and ends with backend behavior and return value. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy.

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 the simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema (though not shown), the description covers the essential aspects: action, parameter details, backend logic, and return. It could mention error scenarios or permissions, but for a pin toggle, it is largely complete.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains the 'item_id' parameter, including accepted reference forms (UUID, sequence shorthand, canonical ref, app URL). The 'pinned' parameter is only described as 'bool' but its purpose is obvious from the tool name. Overall, it adds significant value beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states the action ('Pin or unpin a sidebar item') and specifies the item types (Task/Habit/Chore/Event). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'update_pinned_label' by noting that custom pin labels are handled elsewhere.

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 provides clear usage context: it explains that the endpoint toggles pin status and that the label argument is not part of this endpoint, directing to the custom label endpoint. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over other related tools like 'batch_tasks' or 'update_task', though the specific action makes the usage fairly clear.

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