memory_pin

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: decay exemption, archive skip, ranking behavior, append-only audit, error codes, and the pin flag's visibility on other tools. It explains side effects (state is latest event, no separate delete) and invariants (pin never mutates confidence, never launder taint). The description is exhaustive.

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 description is detailed and front-loaded with the core purpose. While it is lengthy, each sentence provides unique value. Minor redundancy (e.g., 'pin is a WITNESSED, audited act' and later 'Audited (hash-chained journal)') could be tightened, but overall it is well-structured for comprehension.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 required params, no output schema, no annotations, 19 siblings), the description is remarkably complete. It covers error responses, interactions with other tools (memory_get/list/digest, memory_retrieve, memory_consolidate), and edge cases (taint, superseded capsules). No gaps are apparent.

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%, but the description adds significant context: id format ('cap-<n>'), reason must be non-empty and audited, and the pinned parameter's semantic meaning beyond boolean (e.g., 'pin is NEVER eligibility'). This enriches the agent's understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: pin or unpin a capsule to prevent decay and archive, with a specific verb ('Pin') and resource ('ONE capsule'). It distinguishes from siblings like memory_forget and memory_consolidate by explaining what pin does and does not do (e.g., not eligibility). The scope and effect are unambiguous.

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 description provides explicit context for when to use the tool, including constraints like pin never resurrecting fenced capsules and taint dominating pin. It mentions error conditions (unknown id, tombstoned id, empty reason) and the append-only nature. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for when pin is inappropriate, though the sibling list implies them.

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