protect

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It clearly states that protecting blocks auto-merge, supersede, and garbage-collect. It doesn't cover side effects or permissions, but for a basic pin/unpin operation it is adequate.

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, no wasted words. Front-loaded with the primary action, extremely 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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete. It explains the core functionality and parameter effects without missing critical aspects.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage, providing baseline 3. The description adds meaning to the 'protected' parameter by explaining true pins and false unpins, and mentions 'protected=false to unpin', which adds value beyond the schema summary.

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 a specific verb 'pin' and resource 'memory', clearly stating it prevents auto-merge, supersede, and garbage-collect. It also mentions unpinning with protected=false. This distinguishes it from siblings like gc, merge_candidates, etc.

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: when wanting to protect a memory from automated processes. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for a simple tool.

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