paste_comments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool parses, matches calls-to-action, and generates ready-to-copy DMs, while also noting the limitation that automatic sending is impossible. This provides meaningful context beyond what schema or annotations offer.

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, information-dense sentence. It covers inputs, processing, outputs, and a constraint without excessive verbosity. Minor noise like 'Sprint E.3' Option B' and French-only phrasing prevent a perfect score.

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 tool with only 2 simple parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it explains the entire workflow (paste → parse → match → generate) and the manual assembly outcome. It doesn't detail the output structure, but that is not critical for basic invocation.

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% with descriptions for both id and raw_text. The description adds value by specifying input formats (tab, pipe, free-form) and explaining the output purpose (personalized DMs), which the schema does not convey. This raises it above the baseline.

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 clearly states the tool's action: importing user-pasted LinkedIn comments, parsing them, matching the CTA, and generating personalized DMs. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on rendering, publishing, or listing.

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 defines the use case: when the user pastes LinkedIn comments in formats like tab, pipe, or free-form. It also explains a key constraint (LinkedIn r_member_social is CLOSED, so auto-send is impossible), guiding the agent to use this tool for manual copy-paste workflows. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but siblings are clearly different.

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