Call a Paperclip operation

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, indicating mutation. The description adds that the path is allowlisted and external inputs are rejected, which is useful security context. No contradiction with annotations, but the description does not disclose further side effects (e.g., what happens on success/failure). A 3 is appropriate given annotation coverage.

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 sentences, front-loaded: first sentence states purpose, second adds a crucial security constraint. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 5 parameters (0% schema coverage) and a destructive nature. It omits parameter explanations, return value behavior, and instructions on how to construct calls. The existence of many sibling tools also makes usage guidance insufficient.

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%, yet the description provides zero information about any of the 5 parameters (body, path, query, multipart, operation). It does not explain their roles, format, or constraints (e.g., operation is a string from a list). This is a critical gap for a tool with no enum hints or descriptions.

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 it calls one exact operation from paperclip_list_operations, distinguishing it from the listing tool and the many specific operation tools. It also specifies security constraints (allowlisted path, no caller-provided URLs/headers/etc.), making its purpose precise.

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 tells when to use: after listing operations, call one exactly. It also states what not to provide (caller-provided inputs). However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over the many specific operation tools, nor does it mention prerequisites like having listed operations first.

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