paste_write

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond the schema by explaining the ephemeral nature, TTL behavior (default 1h, max 24h), the backend implementation, and the explicit exclusion from being a vault. It does not mention the response format or any auth requirements, but given the simplicity and focus on 'agent handoff', this is a reasonable level of transparency.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences that pack the core function, backend details, TTL constraints, and purpose without any fluff. Every phrase contributes meaning, and the most critical differentiator ('NOT a vault') is front-loaded clearly.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, TTL limits, ephemerality, and usage context. It does not specify the return value (e.g., a paste ID or URL), but given the presence of paste_read as a sibling, an agent can infer the retrieval flow, and the simplicity of the tool doesn't demand more. Slightly more detail on expected output would be beneficial but not critical.

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 input schema already documents both parameters (content and ttl_seconds) with 100% coverage. The description adds human-readable TTL units (1h, 24h) and the context of 'short ephemeral paste' for content, which slightly enhances understanding. However, since the schema covers the essential semantics, the description contributes minimal additional value, keeping this at the baseline.

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 verb 'store' and the resource 'paste', and defines the scope as 'short ephemeral' with a backend ('54ch10'). It explicitly distinguishes from a vault and names the intended use case ('agent handoff'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like paste_read without opening their schemas.

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: it is for storing short ephemeral pastes for agent handoff, not for long-term storage (NOT a vault). It specifies TTL defaults and limits, which guide when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools (e.g., paste_read for retrieval), though the purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer.

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