pin_symbol

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

Description indicates write behavior ('setting a multiplicative weight', returns pin object) but annotation declares readOnlyHint: true. This is a direct contradiction, resulting in a score of 1 per guidelines. The description itself discloses side effects (boosts containing file) and limit, but the contradiction overrides.

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 concise sentences: action, use case, constraints/output. Front-loaded with primary verb. No redundant 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?

Covers return format ({ ok, pin? }), capping (50 active pins), and side effect on containing file. Could brief mention removal (via unpin sibling) but not essential. Output schema is absent but description compensates.

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 100% with each parameter well-documented. Description adds no new semantic meaning beyond schema (e.g., weight range, default TTL, required symbol_id). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the primary action: boosting or demoting a symbol in PageRank-driven ranking via multiplicative weight. It distinguishes from sibling pin_file by specifying symbol vs file, and provides concrete use cases (canonical examples, architectural keystones). No tautology.

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?

Explicitly mentions capping at 50 pins per project as a usage constraint. Suggests when to use ('surface canonical examples or architectural keystones'). Does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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