pinterest_create_pin

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the pin is immediately live, has no draft state, requires specific permissions, demands a public http(s) image URL (local files fail), and warns about click-through analytics depending on the 'link' field. This goes well beyond a generic 'creates a pin' statement.

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 is three focused sentences, each carrying necessary information: what the tool does, prerequisites, and critical constraints. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids redundancy or filler, making it easy to scan.

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?

Despite having 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose, prerequisites, key parameter constraints, and success semantics ('once this returns success, the pin is on the account'). This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without needing additional context.

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 descriptions already cover 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by emphasizing the 'social' permission requirement for agent_id (not in schema) and reasserting the live-pin consequence. It mostly echoes schema details for image_url and link, but the added prerequisite justifies a score above baseline.

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 'Publish a real, immediately-live pin to one of our boards,' which uses a specific verb ('publish') and resource ('pin') while also indicating the scope ('to one of our boards'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling read/list tools and the separate pinterest_create_board tool.

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 explicit prerequisites: agent_id must hold 'social' and task_id must be cleared for with_nate. It also states the 'no draft state' behavior and directs the 'link' field to the destination URL, giving practical usage context. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the conditions and examples imply when this tool is appropriate.

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