Restore an observation's normal recency order by unpinning it from the memory store.
Unpin a local observation so it returns to normal recency order.
| 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?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). The description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining the effect on recency ordering, which goes beyond the annotations. 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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and effect. It contains zero filler and 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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists, annotations present), the description is sufficient to convey the core purpose and effect. The term 'local observation' is a minor domain ambiguity, but overall the description is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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 description coverage is 100%; the id parameter is already well-documented in the schema (numeric identifier, also accepted as observation_id). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so baseline score 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 ('unpin') and resource ('local observation') plus a clear effect ('returns to normal recency order'). It clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling mem_pin, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 usage (you unpin something that was pinned), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like mem_pin, nor does it describe any prerequisites or exclusions. The context is inferred rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.