paste_from_history

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

The description is consistent with the annotations: it writes to the active clipboard, matching readOnlyHint=false, and it does not destroy the history entry, matching destructiveHint=false. It does add the useful note that an existing clipboard value is replaced, but says nothing about error behavior for invalid IDs or what is returned on success.

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?

A single sentence with zero wasted words, and the action and target are front-loaded so an agent can act immediately.

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 one-parameter tool with a fully documented schema, this is nearly complete. The only remaining gap is what happens on an invalid ID or whether a confirmation is returned, which a brief clause could have covered.

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% and the single parameter is documented as 'Cliphist entry ID'. The description's 'by its ID' adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Copy') and resource ('clipboard history entry') with the mechanism ('to the active clipboard by its ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from list_clipboard_history, get_clipboard, and delete_clipboard_entry, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 phrase 'by its ID' implies the agent must first obtain an ID (e.g. via list_clipboard_history), but this workflow is left implicit. There is no stated exclusion or named alternative for the other clipboard tools in the sibling set.

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