basecamp_pin_message

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the full burden. It only explains the core action but fails to disclose any side effects, permissions, reversibility, or constraints (e.g., whether pinning replaces an existing pin, whether the message must be in a specific board). This is a mutation tool, so more transparency is expected.

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 redundant or irrelevant content. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without waste, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool is simple with only two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The short description sufficiently communicates the immediate effect. While it lacks caveats about side effects or return behavior, the low complexity means this description is reasonably complete for invoking the tool.

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 50% (only message_id is described). The tool description adds no parameter details. project_id is undocumented and unexplained. For partial coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not mention either parameter, leaving ambiguity for the agent.

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 clearly states the resource: 'a message to the top of the message board'. This distinguishes it from related tools like basecamp_unpin_message. It is unambiguous and directly reflects the tool's primary function.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or conditions. The description merely states the action without any contextual instruction. Users must infer usage from the tool name and siblings (e.g., unpin_message).

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