Pin or unpin a gallery item in the landing featured carousel and set its rank to control display order.
Pin/unpin a Gallery item to the landing featured carousel. Set is_featured and featured_rank (lower = earlier).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | gallery_items.id | |
| is_featured | Yes | true to pin, false to unpin | |
| featured_rank | No | Sort key (e.g. 10, 20, 30). Only when is_featured=true. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the concrete effect: it writes is_featured and featured_rank, and that lower rank sorts earlier. It omits anything about permissions, whether reordering affects existing featured items, or reversibility beyond the implied unpin.
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, front-loaded with the action and destination, no filler. The rank-ordering rule is placed immediately after the primary action, which is the right emphasis order.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: it never states permission needs, how it interacts with already-featured items, or what the caller gets back. The essential fields are covered, but an agent could act incorrectly on ordering assumptions.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, and the baseline is 3. The description adds a modest clarification on rank semantics (lower = earlier) that slightly refines the schema's 'Sort key' wording but nothing beyond that.
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?
Names a specific paired verb (pin/unpin), the resource (Gallery item), and the destination (landing featured carousel), which is concrete enough for an agent to act on. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the nearby sibling set_gallery_cover, which is the main gap keeping it from a 5.
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 pin/unpin framing and the is_featured flag imply when the tool applies, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over set_gallery_cover or update_gallery_item, and no prerequisites. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.