Pins or unpins a memory so pinned entries never sink and are always considered during recall, rescuing important information from being forgotten.
钉住/取消钉住一条记忆。钉住的记忆永不沉底，每次召回都会考虑它（手动抢救）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | 记忆 id | |
| pinned | No | true 钉住，false 取消，默认 true |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavioral consequence — pinned memories never sink and are always considered during recall — and the word 取消 makes clear that pinning is reversible. It still omits side effects such as what happens if the id does not exist, whether the operation is idempotent, or what the call returns.
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 short sentences with zero filler: the action comes first and the behavioral rationale follows. Every clause adds information, and the parenthetical is a compact usage hint.
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 mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the effect but leaves gaps around failure modes and return behavior. Nothing incorrect is present, but more edge-condition coverage would be needed to call it complete.
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%, and the schema already explains both `id` and `pinned`, including the default of true. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 names a specific verb pair (pin/unpin) and the resource (a memory), so the agent immediately knows the operation. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as memory_update or memory_alias, which keeps it below a 5.
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 parenthetical '手动抢救' (manual rescue) implies the situation in which this is appropriate — a memory that would otherwise sink. However, there is no explicit when-not condition, no mention of alternatives such as memory_update, and no statement about prerequisites (for example, the id must belong to an existing memory).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.