vectr_pin

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

The description discloses non-obvious behavior beyond annotations: unconditional injection, no relevance scoring, never dropped for being off-topic, and a bounded number of directive+pinned notes allowed in this tier. It also makes clear that unpinning is possible via pinned=false. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 and well-structured, with the primary effect front-loaded. Each sentence contributes a distinct aspect: effect, use case, unpin method, resource bound, and equivalence with write-time pinning. It is slightly verbose but not redundant.

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 operation with no output schema, the description fully explains when to use it, what it does, and how to undo it. It also covers the resource-administration bound and equivalent alternative, leaving no practical gap for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 documents note_id and pinned. The description's only added hint is 'Pass pinned=false to unpin,' which essentially restates the schema. Therefore, the description adds no significant value beyond the input schema, yielding the baseline 3.

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 and resource: 'Pin a note' so it is 'injected on EVERY future vectr_recall(query=...) call'. It further distinguishes itself from the standing-rule directive role and from vectr_remember by explaining that this is for notes you don't want to reclassify.

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?

It explicitly says when to use this tool: for a note that must never be missed by an unlucky query, and contrasts it with the kind='directive' role. It also names an alternative/equivalent approach: passing pin=true to vectr_remember at write time. The 'pin sparingly' caveat additionally guides usage.

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