pin_symbol

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

The description indicates a mutation operation (setting a pin with weight), but annotations declare readOnlyHint as true, which directly contradicts the described behavior. This serious inconsistency misleads the agent.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences: purpose, use case, and limits/return type. No wasted words, each sentence adds value.

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?

Despite the annotation contradiction, the description covers the core behavior, side effects, caps, and return format. It is reasonably complete for a simple pinning tool.

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% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds extra context: the weight's default, range, and demotion effect, and the containing-file boost, which goes beyond what the schema provides.

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 boosts or demotes a symbol's rank via a multiplicative weight, and mentions the secondary effect on containing files. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pin_file, unpin, list_pins.

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 includes the use case 'surface canonical examples or architectural keystones', providing clear guidance on when to use. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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