mem_pin

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely delivers: it discloses the core behavioral effect (protection from decay and archival) and reversibility (unpin). It does not detail secondary effects on retrieval or permissions, but the primary state-changing behavior is transparent.

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: the first states the action and effect, the second provides a rationale with concrete examples. Each sentence earns its place; the rationale may be slightly stylized, but it remains compact and informative.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential state change (pin/unpin), the effect (no decay/archive), and a plausible use case. Minor omissions (e.g., exact interaction with memory retrieval) are acceptable given complexity.

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%, with both parameters already documented ('slug' and 'pinned' including default behavior). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the 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?

Clearly states the verb ('pin'/'unpin'), the resource ('skill'), and the effect (never decays, never archived). The purpose is distinct from all sibling tools, which perform search, retrieval, writing, updating, learning, and reinforcement.

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?

Provides clear contextual guidance: it explains when pinning is appropriate ('a deploy gate, a safety constraint') and why it matters for rarely-needed rules. It does not explicitly name alternatives or offer when-not-to-use exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide.

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