pin_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the mutation semantics (a boolean toggle) and states the return value ('JSON-compatible updated page'), but says nothing about required permissions, idempotency of re-pinning, or what happens when neither selector is supplied. Adequate for a simple toggle, but not rich.

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 purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence, followed by tidy Args and Returns blocks. It is appropriately short for a simple tool, though the Args section largely restates the input schema and Returns restates the output schema, adding mild redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, and it covers the three parameters briefly. For a simple boolean toggle this is close to complete; the only real gaps are permission requirements and the no-selector edge case, which are minor here.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does partially by documenting all three parameters: pinned (the toggle), id (preferred selector), and path. However, it omits the defaults (pinned=true, empty-string selectors) and the behavior when both selectors are blank, so the heavy burden of 0% coverage is only partly met.

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 specific verb pair and resource: 'Pin or unpin a page.' That is unambiguous and no sibling tool competes for the pinning action, so an agent can select it correctly. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the page-mutation siblings (update_page_tags, move_page, etc.), which is the only reason it falls short of 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?

There is no guidance on when to pin versus unpin, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternative tools or conditions. The only usage-adjacent statement ('id preferred when both selectors are supplied') is a parameter tie-breaker, not task-level guidance. The agent is left to infer intent from the name alone.

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