documents_pin

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds minimal context beyond the tool name ('in its collection') but does not explain side effects, reversibility, permissions, or impact on document ordering. This is only slightly more informative than a tautology.

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 a single short sentence that is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. It succinctly states the action and object, achieving maximum brevity without losing clarity.

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?

While the tool is simple with one parameter, the description lacks essential context about the pinning behavior, its relationship to unpinning, and the meaning of 'in its collection'. Given no annotations or output schema, the description should provide more operational context, which it does not.

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 100% with the 'id' parameter already documented as 'Document ID'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema provides sufficient meaning, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Pin') and resource ('a document'), with the context 'in its collection' adding scope. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like documents_star or documents_unpin, the verb 'pin' is specific enough to convey the core purpose.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or contrast with documents_unpin or documents_pinned. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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