pin_file

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

The description describes a mutating operation (setting a weight, creating a pin), but annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, creating a contradiction. This undermines transparency and could mislead agents about side effects.

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 front-loaded with the core action, concise at four sentences, and each sentence adds unique value: operation, use cases, cap, and return format. No redundant or missing information.

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 annotations and schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, constraints, and return format. However, it omits details about the effect after expiration and potential error states, which would be helpful for robust agent usage.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, and the description adds meaningful context: explains that weight is a multiplier on PageRank and that values <1 demote, along with defaults for weight and expiration. This goes beyond schema metadata.

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 specifies the verb 'Boost (or demote)' and the resource 'specific file', clearly indicating that the tool modifies PageRank ranking. It also provides use case examples, differentiating it from sibling tools like pin_symbol which work on symbols.

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 offers explicit usage scenarios (canonical examples, architectural keystones, WIP features) but does not directly contrast with alternatives like pin_symbol or list_pins. The context is clear, but no negative instructions are provided.

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