pin_reset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the destructive scope (a regex can match every pin) and frames the operation as a correction of a prior pin_set, but it does not say what state the pin lands in afterwards, whether reserved/locked pins are protected, whether the call is reversible, or what happens if nothing matches.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the operation and its two modes front-loaded ahead of the usage hint. Every clause earns its place.

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 2-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what it does and when, but leaves important agent-facing questions unanswered: post-call pin state, behavior on no-match, and interaction with locked or reserved pins.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces the exact-name vs regex duality and implies `.*` frees everything, but the schema already says 'Pin name or regex', so it adds only marginal interpretation rather than new parameter semantics.

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: frees one pin by exact name or all pins matching a regex. It is understandable without opening the schema, but it never names its closest siblings (pin_clear_all, pin_reserve, pin_lock), so the agent must infer the boundary between 'reset matching pins' and 'clear all pins'.

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 clause 'Use after pin_set to undo a misassignment' gives a concrete trigger condition and names the sibling tool that precedes it. It stops short of explicit exclusions, e.g. when to prefer pin_clear_all over a `.*` regex, or whether locked/reserved pins are eligible.

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