Edit a published Pin

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint:false, idempotentHint:true, destructiveHint:false), the description discloses critical behavior: the endpoint is beta and may be refused regardless of scopes, media can never be changed, and returned values reflect stored state not sent values. It also states cost (0 credits) and connection requirement. This goes far beyond annotation hints and prevents mismatched expectations.

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 long (over 100 words) but each section is purposeful: purpose, partial-update rule, two critical limits with alternatives, and behavioral note. It is front-loaded with the action and the 'only send' rule, and the limits are clearly numbered. While not concise, the density of essential warnings justifies the length.

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 tool with complex constraints (beta availability, immutable media, partial updates, connectivity, cost), the description covers all relevant aspects. It explains what can be edited, what cannot, what to do if refused, how the return values behave, and prerequisites. No missing information is apparent given the schema and annotations.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The description adds the key usage rule 'Only send the fields that should change' (partial update semantics) and lists the editable fields, reinforcing parameter meaning without redundancy. It does not describe each parameter in detail, but given full schema coverage, this is sufficient.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Edit a published Pin' and enumerates the editable fields (title, description, destination link, alt text, or board). It explicitly differentiates from save_pinterest_pin and delete/re-pin alternatives, making its purpose unambiguous relative to siblings.

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 provides explicit usage rules: 'Only send the fields that should change' and details two limits with concrete fallback actions (save_pinterest_pin for re-boarding, delete+re-pin for media changes or wording when beta refusal occurs). It tells the agent exactly when to use this tool and when to use alternatives.

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