engram_pin

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose the key behavioral effect: pinning bypasses recency decay. It does not state reversibility (unpin), persistence across sessions, idempotency, or permission requirements, leaving meaningful gaps for a mutation-style 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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the payoff condition. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter tool this covers the core operation, but with no annotations and no output schema it omits reversibility, return behavior, and any interaction with related tools like engram_get_drawer or decay-related siblings.

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 0% and the single drawer_id parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description implies a drawer identifier is required but adds no format, source, or constraints beyond what the parameter name already suggests.

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?

States a specific verb (pin) plus resource (drawer) and the effect (bypasses recency decay), which is more than a restatement of the name. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like engram_get_drawer or engram_delete_drawer, but the 'pin' verb is unambiguous.

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 on when to pin a drawer versus alternatives such as engram_search or engram_get_drawer, no prerequisites, and no note on whether/how to unpin. The agent must infer all usage context.

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