pin

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the key effect (the node is exempt from auto-archiving), which is the core behavior an agent needs. However, it does not clarify reversible behavior on unpin or any side effects, leaving a partially disclosed profile.

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 tight sentence with the core action front-loaded ('Pin (or unpin) a node'). No wasted verbiage; the 'durable knowledge' flourish is short and adds thematic context without excessive 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?

The tool is simple (2 params, 1 required, no output schema), so the bar is low. Still, the disconnect between the description and schema means an agent must infer which param targets the node and which toggles the state. There's no detail on whether unpinning immediately re-exposes the node to archiving. Barely adequate.

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 — but it never names node_id or explains the pinned boolean directly. The phrase 'or unpin' only implicitly hints at the pinned toggle, and the node_id target is assumed. The description fails to fill the parameter coverage gap.

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 pair (pin/unpin) applied to a specific resource (node) and gives the outcome: never auto-archived. This distinguishes it from memory-oriented siblings like remember/reinforce since it concerns archive lifecycle, not recall strength. The 'human principal mark' clause adds flavor but doesn't obscure the purpose.

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?

No guidance on when to pin versus using siblings like remember, forget, or maintain. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or mention of when NOT to use the tool. The agent must infer context from the archive-prevention wording alone.

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