Pin Card

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds meaningful behavioral scope: pins are per-user and per-account, affecting only the authenticated user's list. It does not mention idempotency or error cases, but for a simple non-destructive mutation this is strong disclosure.

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?

Four tight sentences, each carrying unique information: action and scope, per-user effect, use case, retrieval path, and a clear alternative. There is no filler or 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 simple two-parameter mutation, the description covers purpose, scope, use case, retrieval route, and the main sibling alternative. The schema fully documents the parameters, and although there is no output schema, the instruction to retrieve results via fizzy_get_pins compensates by telling the agent how to observe the outcome.

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%, and the input schema already documents card_number as the visible board ID distinct from card_id, and account_slug with examples and source endpoints. The description reinforces account independence but does not add parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 identifies a specific action (pin a card) with a precise scope: the current user's personal quick-access list. It also distinguishes itself from fizzy_gild_card by contrasting per-user pinning with team-wide flagging, making the purpose immediately clear.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool: to keep track of a card you need to return to. It names the alternative for team-wide priority (fizzy_gild_card) and explains the per-user vs. team distinction, giving clear routing guidance.

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