Remove a QA variant pin

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It covers the core effect, the 404 error when no pin exists, the required member/admin/owner role, and the return value (`{ overrides }` with the remaining pin list). This is rich, specific behavioral context beyond what structured data provides.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary effect, then error behavior, then auth and return value. Every sentence adds distinct, necessary information with no filler or redundancy.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the action, the behavioral consequence, error handling, authorization requirements, and the return shape. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides; it only refers to the device and experiment in general terms. Per the baseline rule, a score of 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('QA pin'), and explains the effect: the device returns to normal bucketed assignment. This clearly distinguishes the tool from its sibling pin_experiment_variant, even without naming the sibling, because the action and outcome are unambiguous.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when a device should stop using a QA pin and resume normal assignment. It also mentions the 404 error case, which helps agents anticipate failure. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the inverse relationship to pin_experiment_variant is implied.

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