add_to_clipboard

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses input format constraints well, including file paths and color representations. However, it does not explain what side effects adding to clipboard history has, such as whether it also changes the system clipboard or only appends to history.

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 concise sentences front-load the core action and resource, then efficiently provide type-specific usage details. No redundant or filler language is present.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers all necessary input semantics and format nuances. It is slightly incomplete in that it does not mention return values or post-conditions, but those are not essential for successful 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by detailing valid color formats (hex, rgb(), rgba(), hsl(), hsla(), CSS name) and emphasizing absolute file paths for file/image types, which are not fully enumerated in the schema.

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 action ('Add content') and resource ('clipboard history'), and enumerates the supported content types. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_clipboard, get_paste_item, and get_clipboard_stats, which are read/search operations.

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 provides clear context for what content types are supported and gives format requirements for file/image and color inputs. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but its write-oriented purpose is obvious alongside read/search siblings, so the intended usage is easy to infer.

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