Update pin

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

Annotations already cover safety profile: readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context by disclosing the required OAuth scope (pins:write) and the immutability of media after creation. It does not, however, clarify partial-update behavior or whether unspecified fields are preserved.

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 concise sentences front-load the core action, then add the media constraint and auth scope. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant restatement of the title or schema.

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 nine-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, media immutability, and the required scope. It leaves partial-update semantics and some parameter-level detail unstated, but annotations and schema fields fill much of the remaining gap.

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 44%, below the 50% threshold, so the description must compensate. It groups parameters into text fields, link, and board placement, which helps map the nine inputs, but it does not explain individual parameters such as alt_text, title, note, board_section_id, or ad_account_id beyond what the schema already partially documents.

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 (Update) and resource (a pin's text fields, link or board placement), and explicitly excludes media changes. It distinguishes itself from pinterest_create_pin by noting that media cannot be changed after creation, so an agent can tell the tools apart 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?

It clearly states what can be updated and notes that media cannot be changed after creation, which is an implied when-not condition. However, it does not name explicit alternatives (e.g., pinterest_create_pin for media changes or pinterest_delete_pin for removal) or give full when-to-use guidance beyond the field scope.

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