Pin projects for AI work

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

Annotations only declare openWorldHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds real value by disclosing the cross-surface side effect that pins are shared with the VS Code panel, and by clarifying the dual pin/unpin behavior. It does not discuss permissions or what happens to pre-existing pins beyond the schema's wording.

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?

Three short sentences with zero waste: the action, the consequence for other tools, and the external side effect, in that order. Every sentence earns its place.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema and partial annotations, the description covers the action, the scope effect, and cross-tool sharing. It is nearly complete, with only the additive/replacing behavior of repeated pin calls left implicit in the schema.

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 100%, so both the 'unpin' flag and the 'projects' array are already documented structurally. The description adds no naming format or id-vs-name nuance beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Pins (or unpins) projects') and immediately clarifies the semantic consequence of that state for other tools. It is clearly distinct from siblings like list_projects or status, though it does not name a sibling to contrast against.

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?

Explains the effect of pinning ('default scope for grep/search', single pin lets tools omit 'project'), which implies when an agent should call it, but never states explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance against alternatives such as passing an explicit project argument instead.

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