memory_unpin

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

Annotations already indicate non-destructive and idempotent behavior, and the description adds context by clarifying that unpinning does not delete the memory and preserves the audit record. This goes beyond the annotations by specifying what side effects (or lack thereof) occur, though it doesn't cover aspects like permissions or error handling.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to meaning, efficiently conveying the action and its non-destructive nature.

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?

The description covers the core action and its audit-preserving attribute, but lacks any parameter guidance. Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema and annotations, it is minimally adequate, yet incomplete for fully autonomous invocation without additional context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter explanations. However, it does not mention agent_name, memory_id, or reason at all, leaving the agent to infer their meanings from names alone. This is a significant gap.

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 'Unpin' and resource 'memory', and clearly distinguishes itself from deletion by stating 'without deleting it, preserving the audit record.' This makes its purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from sibling tools like memory_write or memory_update_state.

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 usage when one wants to unpin a memory while retaining the audit record, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. No sibling tool is referenced, so the guidance is only implicit and thus limited.

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