paste_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It mentions automatic expiry and no auth requirement, but does not disclose rate limits, size limits, or error handling. Adequate but not rich.

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 opens with a clear one-liner, followed by a brief use-case sentence and sample prompts. The Args section is structured. The sample prompts add length but are helpful for prompting. Could be slightly more terse.

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 paste tool with 4 parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and parameter meanings. Minor gap: no mention of paste size limits or rate limiting, but not critical for typical use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'content' is the text to paste, 'title' is optional, 'syntax' is for highlighting (with examples), and 'expiry_days' is days until expiry with a default. This adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema.

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 starts with a clear action ('Post text to dpaste.org and return a shareable URL') and lists sample prompts that illustrate typical use cases. Siblings include no similar paste tool, so differentiation is implicit.

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 states when it is great for (sharing code, logs, configs) and notes that no account or API key is needed. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but given the sibling list, no alternative exists.

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