pin_to_ipfs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a key detail: the cost ($0.01 per pin). However, it does not mention irreversible side effects, the public nature of IPFS data, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The cost disclosure is valuable, but other behavioral aspects remain unclear.

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, consisting of two short sentences with no redundant words. It front-loads the core action and provides the essential return value and cost, earning a perfect score for conciseness and structure.

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?

The tool has a simple two-parameter schema and no output schema. The description covers the main functionality and return value, but it omits important context such as potential public visibility of pinned data and alternatives for retrieval. Given the absence of annotations, the description should provide more completeness regarding side effects and usage context.

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 covers 100% of the parameters (json and name) with descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Pin'), the resource ('JSON data'), and the destination ('IPFS via Pinata'), and specifies the output ('Returns the IPFS CID'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_from_ipfs, which retrieves data rather than pins it.

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: pinning JSON data to IPFS. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives like get_from_ipfs for retrieval. The context of sibling tools hints at the alternative, but no direct guidance is provided.

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