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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds the key consequence beyond that: the removal is irreversible and destroys the current contents. It still doesn't mention confirmation requirements or error behavior when the target device is offline.

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, no filler, and the primary usage trigger is front-loaded before the irreversibility warning.

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?

An output schema exists and the single parameter is fully documented, so the description only needs to convey purpose, trigger, and destructiveness — all of which it does. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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?

Single 'device' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its dependency on list_devices, and the description adds nothing further. Baseline 3 applies when schema coverage is 100%.

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?

States a specific verb ('clear') plus resource ('paired computer clipboard'), which cleanly separates it from sibling tools clipboard_read and clipboard_write. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

'On user request, for example after handling sensitive copied text' gives a concrete triggering scenario. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., use clipboard_write to overwrite instead) or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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