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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the return values (id and secret edit key), a size ceiling of 100,000 chars, the privacy framing of the link, and a security caveat. It omits what happens at expiry and whether the edit key is strictly required to modify the note later, which are the main remaining gaps.

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?

Five short sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, usage context, return values, limit, and safety warning. Front-loaded with the core action and free of filler.

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 two-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: what it creates, what comes back (id plus edit key), and size limits. A brief note on how the returned key pairs with read_note/edit_note would fully close the loop.

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 50%: 'days' is well documented in the schema while 'text' has no schema description. The description compensates partially by implying what text is and adding a 100,000-char maximum not present in the schema, but it says nothing about the 'days' retention parameter beyond what the schema already states.

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 ('Save text at a private link (paste bin)') and clarifies the mental model with the paste-bin analogy. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling edit_note, though 'Returns an id and a secret edit key' implies creation of a new note rather than modification of an existing one.

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?

'Use it as memory between sessions' gives a concrete when-to-use context, and 'Never save secrets' is an explicit constraint. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., edit_note for updating an existing note), so the agent must infer that from the return values.

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