unpin

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

Annotations already carry idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: replica queueing behavior, idempotency semantics, refusal conditions, and exact reply values. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: main operation, alternative tool, idempotency, replica behavior, refusal condition, and response values. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no 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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is fully self-contained. It covers normal behavior, edge cases, failure modes, and all possible replies, so an agent can invoke it correctly without external context.

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% and the sole required parameter id is already described as 'The id to unpin (remove the Always binding from it).' The description repeats that semantic but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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: 'removes the Always binding from an existing item.' It clearly distinguishes itself from revise by noting revise is for changes beyond the binding, and the sibling set includes pin as the inverse operation.

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 says to use revise instead when anything besides the binding needs to change, and instructs what to do if unpinning would leave no binding: give it a Moment or Target binding first, or leave it pinned. This is strong when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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