enable_auto_paste

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly describes the trigger (copying image + Ctrl+V) and the effect (auto-triggering pasting). It does not mention side effects, persistence, or scope, but for a simple toggle, this is reasonable. The description adds value beyond the tool name without being misleading.

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, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a clear explanation of the behavior. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy. It is concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete. It fully explains what the tool does and its effect. There are no missing pieces that would prevent an agent from using it correctly. The sibling context further clarifies its role.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the input schema shows none. The description adds context about the tool's behavior, which compensates for the lack of parameters entirely.

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 purpose: 'Enable automatic paste detection.' It uses a specific verb (enable) and resource (automatic paste detection), and explains the exact behavior triggered. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'paste_image' (manual) and 'disable_auto_paste' (the inverse).

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 provides clear usage context by explaining what happens when enabled (copying an image and pressing Ctrl+V triggers pasting). It implicitly contrasts with using slash commands ('without needing to type slash commands'), which suggests an alternative workflow. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of full explicit guidance.

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