clipboard_set

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

The description discloses the fallback mechanism behavior, which is valuable beyond what annotations provide. It explains that with an active session scrcpy is used (optional paste flag), otherwise ADB commands handle it. The paste parameter's scrcpy-only limitation is noted. With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, the description adds the mode-switching context beyond the structured fields.

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 a single, information-dense sentence covering purpose, mechanism, and fallback behavior. It's compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It could be slightly more structured with the fallback detail, but there's 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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values. The tool has only three parameters, all documented, and the mode-switching behavior is explained. For a relatively simple clipboard-set operation, this is reasonably complete. Minor gap: it doesn't note potential failure modes (e.g., what happens if neither scrcpy nor ADB is available).

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 all three parameters are documented in the schema with descriptions. The description adds some context about the paste flag (scrcpy only) and clarifies the mode-dependent behavior, which aligns with the paste parameter's schema note. However, the description doesn't add substantial meaning beyond the schema — the mode-switching detail is the main added value. Baseline 3 is appropriate for full schema coverage.

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 the tool sets clipboard content on a device, with a specific verb+resource. It also distinguishes the mechanism (scrcpy SET_CLIPBOARD vs ADB fallback), which adds technical specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling clipboard_get, though the verb 'set' vs 'get' makes the distinction obvious.

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 explains the dual-mode behavior (uses scrcpy when session active, falls back to ADB), giving the agent context on when the different paths apply. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name alternatives, but the mechanism details provide meaningful usage context. The openWorldHint=true annotation also suggests permissive operation.

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