Pin a comment on the board

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds that the bubble is anchored either to a component or to a board position, which is useful, but it says nothing about persistence, whether annotations are additive, or who sees them during the interview.

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, front-loaded with the action and anchoring modes, with the use-case hint trailing. No filler, though the quoted probe example is more flavor than information.

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 4-parameter, non-destructive create tool with no output schema, the description covers the core anchoring model an agent needs. Remaining gaps (return value, whether target is required alongside or instead of x/y) are minor but real.

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 coverage is only 25% (only 'target' is documented), so the description must compensate. It does clarify the key semantic point that a comment points either at a component (by id or label) or at a position, implying target vs. x/y usage, but it leaves x/y coordinate semantics and the 1-400 char text constraint unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Pin an interviewer comment bubble on the board') with the anchoring modes spelled out. It implicitly distinguishes itself from highlight/draw_on_board by being a comment bubble, but never names those siblings to make the distinction explicit.

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 clause 'Great for "what if this fails?" style probes' gives a use-case flavor, but there is no explicit guidance on when to pin a comment versus using highlight or draw_on_board, and no stated preconditions.

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