skuuy_paste

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

With annotations only declaring readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, the description adds genuinely useful behavior: ephemerality via TTL-based deletion, a 'zero-script secure viewer', and a concrete rate limit ('Free tier: 25 pastes/day'). It does not state auth requirements or whether the paste can be deleted early, but the quota disclosure goes beyond what the annotations provide and is consistent with a non-read-only, non-idempotent create.

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?

Two tight sentences plus a quota line; the core verb and artifact are front-loaded, and the quota constraint is a fact an agent needs before calling. No filler or restatement of the name.

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 6-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage contexts, durability, and quota. The notable gap is that with no output schema, it never says what the caller receives back (presumably a shareable URL) or how long that URL remains valid to share.

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 description coverage is 100%, so ttl, format, language, and burn_after_reading are already fully documented in the schema. The description only loosely gestures at these ('syntax highlighting' hints at language, 'ephemeral' at ttl) without adding format, defaults, or enum meaning the schema lacks, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb ('Creates') and a well-defined resource ('ephemeral, cleanly-rendered shareable text or Markdown paste page'), which is easy to separate from siblings like drop_file or create_temp_inbox. It stops short of explicitly naming or contrasting with any sibling, so it lands at clear-but-not-differentiating.

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 this when sharing code snippets, logs, prompt templates, or long markdown reports with users or other agents without formatting loss' is an explicit, concrete when-to-use statement with example payloads. There is no when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g., drop_file for binary files), so it falls one step short of a 5.

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