pin_memory

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

The description discloses the key behavioral effect (always included in recall) and explains the priority parameter's meanings. Without annotations, it carries the transparency burden well, though it omits mention of mutability or reversibility.

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 well-structured with a summary, conceptual analogy, and parameter details. The thalamic relay analogy adds context but may be slightly verbose for an AI agent; still concise overall.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and return format. It references the relevant sibling 'unpin_memory' implicitly but doesn't mention prerequisites or integration with other tools. Given the output schema exists, the return description is sufficient.

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 Args section provides clear, human-readable explanations for all three parameters, adding meaning beyond the schema's type and default definitions. Priority values are explicitly mapped to semantic categories.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('Pin a memory') and its effect ('always included in recall results'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'unpin_memory' and 'forget' by specifying the persistent inclusion in recall.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'store' or 'unpin_memory'. The description does not mention prerequisites or when pinning is appropriate, leaving the agent to infer context.

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