unpin

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a state mutation (removing a pin) but says nothing about idempotency, reversibility, permission requirements, or what happens if the node was not pinned. Only the identifier-acceptance note adds any behavioral context.

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?

Two terse sentences with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented 'initiative' parameter, this is too thin. The agent cannot tell what unpinning entails in this domain or how the optional scoping parameter affects the operation.

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 only 50%: 'name' is documented but 'initiative' has no description at all in either the schema or the description. 'Accepts name or id' largely repeats the schema's own note on 'name', and the optional 'initiative' parameter is never explained, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Unpin a node'), which is a clear operation. The inverse sibling 'pin' exists in the tool list, and the name/verb pairing makes the distinction inferable, but the description never explicitly names or contrasts it.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not, or alternative guidance is given. 'Accepts name or id' is a parameter note, not usage context. The agent gets no signal about when unpinning is appropriate versus other state-changing siblings like forget or delete_initiative.

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