pin_post

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the core action (pin/unpin) and the positional effect, but it lacks details on permissions, idempotency, or potential side effects. Since the tool is simple and the behavior is mostly guessable from the description, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loading the action and providing a concise consequence. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition. This is an exemplary concise description for a simple tool.

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 toggling operation, the description adequately covers the purpose and effect. It does not describe return values or error conditions, but given the tool's low complexity and full schema coverage, these omissions are acceptable. A slightly richer note on permissions or idempotency would make it fully complete, but the current description is sufficient.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema—it simply restates the pin/unpin behavior already captured by the 'pin' parameter description. Thus the baseline 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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Pin or unpin a Piazza post.' It also explains the effect ('Pinned posts appear at the top of the feed'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like get_post or create_post. This is a precise and unambiguous 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?

The description implies the use case by stating the effect on the feed, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, among the sibling tools, no other tool handles pinning, so the intended usage is clear. A dedicated alternative/exclusion note would push this to 5.

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