Legacy: paste_write → paste.write

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate those. The description adds the legacy alias context and endpoint, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose any behavioral details like whether the paste is created immediately, any side effects, or response behavior. The description is minimal but not contradictory.

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 extremely concise: one sentence with the essential routing information. It front-loads the legacy alias status and the preferred alternative. No wasted words.

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 legacy alias tool, the description is sufficient for routing: it tells the agent to prefer paste.write. However, it doesn't explain what the tool does (creates a paste) or any behavioral context. Since the schema covers parameters and annotations cover safety, the main gap is the lack of a functional description. An agent could call it correctly but might not understand the purpose.

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 the schema already documents both parameters (content and ttl_seconds) with descriptions. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies this as a legacy alias for paste.write and specifies the endpoint (POST /v1/paste). It distinguishes itself from the preferred paste.write sibling by explicitly naming it. However, it doesn't state what the tool actually does (creates a paste) beyond the alias relationship, so an agent unfamiliar with paste.write would not know the function.

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 explicitly instructs to prefer paste.write, which is a clear usage directive. It tells the agent when to use this tool (only as a legacy fallback) and names the alternative. This is strong routing guidance.

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