Save (repin) a pin

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the required auth scope ('pins:write'), which annotations do not convey, but says nothing about duplicate-save behavior or what a repin returns.

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?

One tight sentence plus a scope tag; the operation is front-loaded and no words are wasted. Appropriate size for a simple two-required-param mutation.

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 4-param non-idempotent write with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose and auth scope adequately. It could additionally note duplicate-repin handling, but nothing essential for invocation is missing.

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%, so all four parameters (pin_id, board_id, ad_account_id, board_section_id) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Save an existing pin') and clarifies the domain term as a repin, which implicitly separates it from pinterest_create_pin. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 phrase 'existing pin' implies this is for repinning rather than creating, which edges toward usage context, but there are no explicit when/when-not statements or named alternatives. A single added clause about create_pin vs save_pin would raise this materially.

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