pinterest_delete_pinPermanently delete a specified pin from Pinterest. Use this to remove unwanted or outdated pins when they must no longer appear on boards.
Permanently delete a pin. This cannot be undone. Scope: pins:write.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pin_id | Yes | The pin id to delete permanently. | |
| ad_account_id | No | Act on behalf of this ad account. Required only for business accounts operating on a shared asset. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description reinforces irreversibility ('This cannot be undone') and adds a behavioral fact the annotations do not carry — the required OAuth scope 'pins:write'. That auth requirement is genuinely additive context.
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?
Three terse sentences with the action, the irreversibility warning, and the required scope — all front-loaded, zero 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?
For a two-parameter delete with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description covers action, irreversibility, and auth scope, so an agent can call it safely. Only a brief note on the response (nothing returned on success) is missing, which is minor given the absence of an output schema.
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% and both parameters (pin_id, ad_account_id) are documented in the schema, including the nuanced ad-account delegation rule. The description adds nothing parameter-specific, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Permanently delete a pin'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling delete_board and delete_board_section tools despite the shared 'delete' verb. The adverb 'Permanently' also signals irreversibility up front.
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 destructive nature and the required 'pins:write' scope imply when this is appropriate, but the description never names alternatives or states when NOT to use it (e.g. versus update_pin or save_pin). Usage is inferable from the purpose, not explicitly guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.