Pin or unpin a link

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

The description discloses that pins are per account, which is a behavioral detail not present in the annotations. It also covers the action of pinning/unpinning, which is clear. The annotation only provides idempotentHint, and the description adds the per-account scope, which is helpful. It does not mention side effects beyond that, but given the simplicity and idempotent hint, this is adequate.

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 very concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that directly state the purpose and key scoping. Every sentence adds value, no filler or repetition. Perfectly brief.

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 simple tool (2 params, no output schema) and the strong annotations and schema coverage, the description is complete. It explains the per-account effect and the relationship to search_links, which addresses the main context an agent might need. No gaps 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?

The schema already covers the parameters well (100% coverage), including the meaning of 'pinned' and clarifying that link_id is the numeric ID from search_links and not a title or URL. The description adds minimal extra context, but the schema does the heavy lifting, so score 4 is appropriate for the high coverage and clarity.

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 pins or unpins a link to the account's dashboard, using a specific verb and resource. It differentiates itself from siblings like create_link or delete_link by focusing on the pinning behavior, and also distinguishes it from search_links by mentioning pins can be listed there.

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 explains that pins are per account and only affect the account associated with the token, which gives clear context for when to use it. It also mentions that pinned links can be listed with search_links, implicitly suggesting that for searching, use search_links. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools for managing links in other ways.

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