paste_code

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful behavior context, such as 'inserts before this line' and the backup option. However, it does not disclose edge-case behavior (e.g., line number out of range, file not existing), error handling, or reversibility, leaving notable 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?

The description is front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a structured Args list and a Returns note. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no fluff. It is concise yet sufficiently detailed for a tool of this size.

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 moderate complexity (4 params, no annotations, output schema presence mentioned but not detailed), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It explains parameters and return type, but lacks usage guidelines, edge cases, and side-effect details beyond backup. It suffices for a basic insertion tool but could be more thorough.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It defines each parameter with meaningful explanations (e.g., line_number is '1-based, inserts before this line'), which adds value beyond the bare schema types. It does not fully specify edge cases, but it covers the essentials.

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 states a specific verb ('Paste') and resource ('code at specific line in target file'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like copy_entire_file, search_and_replace, and copy_code. The operation is unambiguous.

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 does not provide any explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_and_replace for replacing existing text, copy_entire_file for duplicating whole files). The usage is implied by the name and args, but there are no stated exclusions or preferred scenarios.

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