pin_annotation

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses persistence into annotations table, Merkle audit log chaining, and a 8 KB rationale limit. Does not contradict any annotations, and provides adequate behavioral context for a mutation operation.

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 sentences with no wasted words. First sentence states primary action; second adds persistence and logging details. Front-loaded with the most critical information.

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 6 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, storage, and logging. Could mention immediate visibility or confirmation, but overall sufficient for a mutation tool.

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 83%, so baseline is 3. Description provides context about rationale size (redundant with schema) and mentions signing (not a parameter). Does not add substantive parameter-specific meaning beyond what schema offers.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Attach' and specifies resource 'signed human annotation' with three named subtypes. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like record_correction or record_decision by focusing on annotations attached to event spans.

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?

Description implies usage for creating human annotations on event spans but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternative tools (e.g., record_correction, record_decision). No exclusion criteria provided.

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