hive_pin

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden well: it discloses permissions (contributors, privileged agents, admins), rarity expectations, unpin semantics, and the important norm that pins are data, not orders. It does not describe return values or error behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by permissions, usage rules, and a concrete example of a useful pin. Every sentence contributes operational or behavioral guidance without filler.

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 mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose, permissions, when and when not to use it, and what a good pin looks like. It leaves some gaps around success/failure behavior and entry_id format, but is otherwise complete.

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. It explains that entry_id refers to an active fleet entry and that unpin: true reverses the operation, adding useful meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 and resource: pin an active fleet entry to its fleet's briefing (hive_pinned), or unpin it with unpin: true. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like hive_write, hive_withdraw, and hive_pinned.

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 explicit when-to-pin guidance (lasting facts every agent needs, not task notes or news), when to unpin (withdrawn, wrong, outdated, others' pins too), and a concrete exclusion (don't unpin others' pins to make room for yours). It also notes who may perform the action.

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