iyke_claude_asset_pin

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 explains the override mechanism, scoping, and the meaning of preferred_tier and preferred_source. It does not mention persistence or side effects, but covers key behavioral traits.

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 concise, single paragraph, front-loaded with the main action. It uses an example and packs all necessary information without wasted words.

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?

Given the complexity (5 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It covers the pinning concept, default behavior, scope, tier, and source. Minor gaps like timing of application are not critical.

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 low (20%, only scope has a description). The description compensates by explaining preferred_tier enum values, preferred_source syntax, and the role of asset_name. It adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb 'Pin' and identifies the resource: 'preferred provider for a Claude-config asset name in a scope'. It explains the default behavior (lowest tier wins) and that a pin overrides this, distinguishing it from sibling tools like unpin and list.

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 explains when to use the tool (to override default lowest-tier selection) and provides context on scope and tier values. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context of siblings makes it clear.

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