x_api_pin_list

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

Despite no annotations, the description thoroughly discloses behavioral traits: it declares the operation as 'mutating, high-risk,' specifies required OAuth scopes and token types, explains the tenant/auth-resolution behavior (scopeTenantId plus exactly one of scopeUserId/scopeAccountId, credentialKey for non-default profiles), describes the expected response shape, lists common failure conditions, and includes explicit safety warnings. This far exceeds the burden placed by the absence of 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?

The description uses labeled sections (Use when, Do not use when, Risk, Required permissions, etc.) that are easy to scan. It front-loads the tautological 'Pin List,' which is redundant and wastes a line, but overall the structure is efficient and every other section conveys distinct operational information. It is longer than necessary but not bloated.

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 tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers a great deal: response shape, failure conditions, prerequisites, environment selection, and an example invocation. The main gap is the lack of a clear definition of the underlying operation (what does 'pin' do?), which is crucial for contextual completeness. Nevertheless, the operational context is largely sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that 'id' is a required path parameter, 'body' is the payload, and it clarifies the mutual exclusivity of scopeUserId/scopeAccountId and the role of credentialKey. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw JSON schema. However, it does not clarify authorizationKey or preferredAuthType, and the 'body' format is left open.

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 opens with 'Pin List.' which is a direct restatement of the tool name and provides no additional meaning. There is no explanation of what pinning a list entails, what resource is affected, or how it differs from sibling tools like x_api_unpin_list or x_api_get_users_pinned_lists. The 'Use when: Pin List' line is also a tautology, offering zero new information.

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 provides a 'Do not use when' clause that correctly steers away from exploration, suggesting x_schema_discovery or x_query_suggestion. However, it lacks any real 'when to use' context beyond the tautological 'Pin List.' It does not mention specific alternative tools for the same operation, such as unpinning or retrieving pinned lists, leaving the agent without guidance on choosing among related APIs.

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