pm_pin

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does well: pinned entries are unaffected by half-life decay, are excluded from resident rotation, and are always present in injection. That is real behavioral context an agent could not infer. It omits idempotency and what happens if text matches nothing, but the core trait is covered.

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, both dense with information: the first states the action and its toggle, the second states the behavioral effect and the use case. Nothing is repeated from the schema, and the highest-value content is front-loaded.

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 three-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, effect, and usage well. The only meaningful gap is the mutual-exclusivity or requiredness of id versus text when pinning, which the schema marks as all-optional and the description does not resolve.

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 100%, so id, text, and unpin are already documented in the schema, and the description adds no syntax or matching details beyond it. A baseline 3 is appropriate here. One thing left unaddressed is that no parameter is required, so the description could clarify that id or text must be supplied.

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 states a concrete verb+resource: pinning (or unpinning) a memory, and immediately spells out the effect of pinning. It clearly distinguishes the operation from sibling memory tools like pm_recall or pm_observe. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, but the distinct action makes mis-selection unlikely.

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?

It gives concrete when-to-use criteria: events only mentioned once but with major consequences, with examples such as marriage/funeral, promises, health, money, and legal matters. That implicitly excludes routine or repeated memories, though it never states a when-not rule or names an alternative tool for ordinary recall.

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