anythingllm_update_pin

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering idempotence and safety profile. The description adds the behavioral effect on LLM context, which is valuable. However, it does not disclose edge cases like error behavior if the document does not exist, or whether pinning overwrites an existing pin state. This is adequate but not extensive; no contradiction with annotations.

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 and well-structured. It opens with a clear summary, adds one sentence of semantic context, and then lists the arguments in an easy-to-scan Args block. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 is simple and has an output schema, so return format is already specified. The description covers purpose, parameters, and the key behavioral effect (always in LLM context). It does not mention prerequisites such as 'document must exist' or failure modes, but given the idempotentHint and simple API, this is a minor gap. Overall, complete enough for correct use.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, yet the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: slug as workspace slug, doc_path with a concrete example and source hint ('as returned by list_documents'), and pinned as a boolean toggle with explicit True/False meanings. This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema fields.

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 explicitly states the tool's action: 'Pin or unpin a document in a workspace.' This is a specific verb+resource construction that distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_documents, remove_documents, or get_document. The added explanation about pinned documents being always included in LLM context further clarifies its 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 provides context for when pinning is useful by explaining that pinned documents are always included in every query regardless of vector similarity. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, such as 'use list_documents to see current pin status' or 'prefer vector search for relevant-in-context documents.' This is clear context but lacks explicit exclusions/alternatives.

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