Servers mcp-pin protects here

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, and the description goes further by disclosing exactly what is and is not returned ('It never returns definitions or changed text') and the escalation path for a pending change. That negative guarantee is behaviorally important and not derivable from the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then usage triggers, then return payload, then next-step routing. Every sentence carries information and none repeats the annotations or schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully documents the returned fields (id, label, tool and prompt counts, approval date, pending) and the follow-up workflow. Nothing an agent needs to call or act on this tool is missing.

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 tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; 'No input' confirms this explicitly. Baseline for a zero-parameter tool.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the MCP servers mcp-pin protects on this machine') and adds the scope detail of whether a change is pending review. It is clearly separable from the sibling tools, one of which it names explicitly as the follow-up call.

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 two explicit triggers ('when the user asks which servers are pinned', 'after mcp-pin blocked a server') and routes the agent forward to mcp_pin_change_summary plus the terminal review command when a change is pending. Both when-to-use and what-to-do-next are covered.

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