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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool writes to the clipboard, that paste:true triggers KEYCODE_PASTE, and that an empty string clears the clipboard. This exceeds basic operation description and gives the agent actionable behavioral expectations.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: the purpose is stated first, then the key option is explained, then the edge case is covered. Every sentence contributes essential information without redundancy.

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 three-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main behaviors: setting, pasting, and clearing. It could slightly improve by mentioning the default of paste when omitted, but the schema already documents that. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the practical effect of paste:true, confirming the empty-string clearing behavior for content, and clarifying that no separate Ctrl+V is needed. This adds genuine semantic value.

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 uses a specific verb ('Set') with a clear resource ('Android device clipboard') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like device_clipboard_get by the write operation and the Android platform. It also adds the unique protocol detail about paste injection, making the tool's purpose 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 clearly implies when to use this tool—when setting the Android clipboard—and adds useful context about not needing a separate Ctrl+V. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as device_clipboard_get or the iOS clipboard tools, nor does it state when this tool should not be used.

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