contextUnpin

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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the row is tombstoned rather than deleted, that history is preserved, and that the retire converges across devices. It omits permission/scope requirements and any error behavior for unknown or already-retired pins.

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?

Front-loaded with the outcome, then the input format, then the tombstone semantics, then the usage cue — a sensible ordering. The closing 'use when' sentence partly repeats the first sentence's framing, so there is minor 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 return values needn't be explained, and the mutation's semantics (soft delete, cross-device convergence) are covered. The scope parameter's meaning is only in the schema, which is acceptable but leaves the description slightly incomplete.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description's restatement of the contextPins/{uid} or bare ULID format adds little. The scope parameter and its 'match the pin's scope' guidance are left entirely to the schema.

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 names a specific verb (retire/unpin) and resource (steering pin or correction) and states the observable effect: it stops surfacing in the cold-start brief. It also names the sibling tools that produce pin identifiers (contextPin/contextCorrect), so an agent can distinguish this teardown operation from the creation path.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger: 'Use when a pinned note or correction is no longer relevant,' and implicitly pairs with contextPin/contextCorrect as the inverse. It does not discuss any when-not conditions or what happens if the pin is already retired or the UID is wrong.

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