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

The description adds a valuable behavioral detail not present in the annotations: multi-pin is supported, meaning a single user can pin multiple connections to the same slot. This helps set expectations about non-replacement behavior. The annotations already signal a write operation and non-destructive behavior, and the description is consistent with those signals.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then adds the most important behavioral nuance, multi-pin support. Every sentence earns its place.

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 pin operation with four required parameters, the description plus schema provide enough context to invoke the tool correctly. It explains the source of connections, the target slot, and the key behavioral twist. The lack of an output schema is not a significant gap here, though it does not describe what happens to existing pins beyond implying coexistence through multi-pin support.

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 all four parameters. The description reinforces where connection_id comes from and what an integration slot is, but it does not add new semantic detail beyond the schema. This is an adequate baseline case where structured information carries the weight.

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 states a specific verb (pin), a specific resource (connection), and a clear target (build's integration slot), while also specifying the source of valid connections via the GET endpoint. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like unpinRevisionIntegrationConnection and listRevisionIntegrationConnections. It adds meaningful detail beyond the title by explaining what is pinned and where.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when pinning an existing connection to a build's integration slot, and it even tells the agent where to obtain valid connection IDs. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the intended usage is unambiguous enough for an agent to select this tool correctly.

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