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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only say non-readonly, non-destructive, closed-world) by disclosing that the code is single-use and expires in 10 minutes and that a pairing lasts 24 hours or until either side stops it. This is exactly the operational context an agent needs to avoid stale-pairing failures.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the return value and lifetime constraints. No filler and every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

With only one parameter and no output schema, the description supplies the return value (pairing_id), its consumer (editor_* tools), and both expiry windows. Nothing material for correct invocation is missing.

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 100% and already documents the string bounds, but the description adds real meaning: the code is 6 characters and is found under 'Pair an agent' in the Studio UI, telling the agent what to ask the user for. Minor tension with the schema's 4-12 length range is not explained.

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 ('Connects to the paywall editor a person has open') and identifies the exact input (the 6-character pairing code in Studio). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like unpair_editor and the editor_* tools it unlocks.

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?

Implies the usage context well by stating it returns a pairing_id 'for the editor_* tools', telling the agent this must precede editor operations. It does not explicitly state when not to call it (e.g. already paired — use unpair_editor first) or name the alternative.

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