Pin standing context for the whole room

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

Annotations are entirely absent, so the description carries the full behavioral burden — and it delivers. It discloses where content surfaces ('Every recruit sees the pin board on every ask and discuss'), the global budget ('~2000 chars across all pins'), and the failure mode ('the call is refused'). This is genuinely rich, high-value context that no structured field provides.

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?

Four sentences with zero waste: purpose first, then visibility, then content style, then budget with the recovery action. The critical constraint is front-loaded near the end where it belongs after establishing purpose. Every sentence earns its place.

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 3-param write tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is thorough: purpose, visibility scope, content rules, budget, failure mode, and recovery are all covered. The only gap is it never states what the call returns on success, which is minor given there's no output schema to reference.

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 100% — all three params (by, text, scope) are self-documenting, so baseline 3 applies. The description reinforces the text semantics ('one line,' decisions not narration) but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; the ~2000-char budget is a global constraint, not per-parameter. Schema does the heavy lifting here.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Add one line of standing room context') and immediately defines content scope ('one decision or standing fact... not narration'). The examples ('we ship Postgres, not Dynamo') make the intent concrete. It reads as the write counterpart to sibling tools pins/unpin, so an agent can distinguish them without opening schemas.

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?

Gives temporal guidance ('Pin decisions as they are taken') and a content constraint ('not narration'), plus the budget flow with the recovery path ('you must unpin or shorten'). However, it never explicitly names the sibling selection (use pins to read, unpin to remove), so the when-to-use logic against alternatives is implied rather than stated.

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