standalone_pin

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals validation rules—only advertised signals accepted, GPIO_* expansion, single binding—but omits important mutation context such as project-state persistence, error behavior on invalid signals, and whether an open project is required.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that communicates the operation and three validation rules without filler. Slightly dense jargon like 'db IOModes' is the only minor drag.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description covers validation behavior but leaves gaps around state mutation, persistence, required project context, and what happens on binding conflicts or reset. It is adequate but not complete for a mutation tool.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics for the signal parameter beyond the schema: accepted values are limited to advertised pin functions, GPIO_* variants are expanded, and a signal may only be bound once.

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: bind or reset a pin signal, with validation against the MCU pinout. Clear enough to understand the operation, but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like pin_set, pin_reset, or standalone_signals.

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 description implies use through the bind/reset verb and validation constraints, and the schema clarifies that omitting signal resets the pin. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over pin_set, pin_reset, or other standalone_* tools.

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