memory_pin

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavioral consequence — pinned items are always returned by memory_context — which is real value beyond the schema. It omits idempotency, behavior when the id does not exist, and any cap on the number of pinned memories.

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 sentence with the action front-loaded; the parenthetical defining 常驻 is the one clause of genuine added value and nothing is wasted.

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 two-parameter toggle with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential effect. Minor gaps remain around failure cases (invalid id) and interaction with search results, but they are not central to calling it correctly.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema (id, pinned with 1/0 semantics and default 1). The description adds no format or edge-case detail about those parameters, so baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb pair (set as pinned / unpin) on a specific resource (a memory), and explains what 'pinned' means. It references the sibling memory_context that consumes the state, though it doesn't distinguish itself from memory_save or memory_delete beyond that.

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?

Usage is implied: use it when a memory should always accompany memory_context results. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g., whether memory_save can set pinned directly), and no note on limits or prerequisites.

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