Pin a local observation to place it before recent observations in memory context, ensuring key decisions or fixes stay visible to the agent.
Pin a local observation so it appears before recent observations in memory context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Numeric observation identifier. Also accepted as `observation_id`. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| pinned | No | ||
| sync_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context by explaining the effect on memory ordering, which goes beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose additional traits such as reversibility via mem_unpin or any side effects on existing pins. Annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) cover some behaviors, so the description provides partial added value.
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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and purpose without any fluff. Every word contributes to understanding.
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?
Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, output schema present, annotations provided), the description is complete enough. It states the action and its effect, and the structured fields cover the remaining details.
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 fully describes the single parameter 'id', including the alias 'observation_id'. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Pin') and resource ('local observation'), and clearly states the effect (appears before recent observations in memory context). This distinguishes it from siblings like mem_unpin and mem_get_observation.
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 clear context for when to use the tool: to prioritize an observation in memory context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous and the sibling mem_unpin implies the reverse operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.