ecosystem_pin_active

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

Given no annotations, the description fully discloses key behavioral traits: pinned repos are excluded from 'removed_from_query' counts in index_update diffs, and their last_active_status remains 'active' even if the fetcher misses them. This provides clear insight into side effects and guarantees.

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 paragraphs, all front-loaded. The first sentence states the main action, the second explains behavioral details, and the third gives usage guidance. Every sentence adds value 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?

For a pinning tool with an output schema (as indicated by context signals), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and its behavioral effects. No additional information is necessary for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema for individual parameters, but it provides context for the repo_id parameter by explaining the tool's purpose. It does not elaborate on the 'reason' or 'project_id' parameters, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 repo') and the specific outcome ('ensure it stays permanently active regardless of future scan results'). It distinguishes the tool from its sibling 'ecosystem_unpin' and other repo management tools by focusing on permanent activation.

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 includes explicit guidance: 'Use this for high-value repos you want to track regardless of GitHub query hits.' It implies the tool is for repos that should be exempt from dynamic removal, but it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, leaving some room for interpretation.

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