Write ephemeral paste

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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: it is ephemeral, stored in a KV with a 1-hour default TTL and 24-hour max, and is intended for agent handoff. It does not explicitly describe repeated-call behavior or idempotency, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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 compact and dense: it states the endpoint, the action, the lifetime constraint, the intended use case, a non-goal, and the companion tool. No filler or redundant schema restatement.

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 two-parameter creation operation, the description gives the operation, constraints, purpose, and companion. It stops short of specifying the exact response shape or duplicate-call behavior, but 'returns an id' is sufficient given the schema's coverage.

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?

Parameter semantics are fully covered in the schema, including descriptions and examples for content and TTL. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but with high schema coverage that is acceptable.

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 action: store a short ephemeral paste and return an id. It also narrows the use case to agent handoff and explicitly contrasts with a vault, making the tool's role 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?

"Agent handoff only — not a vault" gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, and "Pair with paste.read" directs the agent to the correct companion tool. This is strong usage orientation beyond the schema.

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