spraay_storage_pin

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

Annotations indicate write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotent. Description adds crucial behavioral info: cost ($0.005 USDC) and permanence, which is not in annotations. No contradiction.

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 sentences, no redundant information. All sentences are meaningful: action, output, supported types, cost. Perfectly concise.

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?

With output schema present, description adequately covers purpose, parameters, and return value. Could mention error cases or rate limits, but for a simple tool it is largely complete.

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 covers 100% of parameters. Description adds concrete examples for 'data' (text, JSON, base64), enhancing schema's generic description. Other parameters get little extra, but enough for 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 action ('Pin content to IPFS'), the purpose ('permanent decentralized storage'), and the output ('Returns CID'). It distinguishes from siblings like spraay_storage_get and spraay_storage_status by focusing on creation of a pin.

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 implies use when permanent storage is needed, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like spraay_storage_status. It only mentions IPFS despite offering an arweave provider.

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