protect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the protective effect and the toggle for unpinning. It does not discuss permissions, errors, or return values, but the core behavior and reversibility are clearly communicated.

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?

Two sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core action and guarantees, the second explains the reversal. The content is front-loaded and free of 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 simple two-parameter toggle tool with no output schema, the description plus schema covers the essential use, semantics, and reversal. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly, though it leaves response/error behavior unspecified.

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 schema already documents both id and protected, including the default and meaning. The description's 'Pass protected=false to unpin' adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 uses the specific verb 'Pin' and clearly identifies the resource: a memory. It also states the exact consequences (no auto-merge, supersede, or garbage-collection), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like merge_candidates, plan_supersede, and gc.

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 when to use the tool: when a memory should be preserved from automatic maintenance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention any alternatives, leaving some usage reasoning to inference.

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