copy_css

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

The description discloses the key side effect—copying to the clipboard—which is more than the name alone provides. However, there are no annotations, and the description does not clarify whether copied content is plain CSS text, whether it overwrites existing clipboard contents, or what the tool returns, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and destination, making the tool's purpose immediately scannable.

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 clipboard operation, the description communicates the essential behavior and required input. It is slightly incomplete regarding the format or return value, but the simplicity of the tool and the absence of an output schema mean the core invocation context is adequately 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 description coverage is 100%, with nodeId documented as 'Node to get CSS for'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema already provides sufficient meaning for the only parameter, so the baseline of 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'), resource ('CSS properties of a node'), and destination ('clipboard'). This distinguishes it from related siblings like read_node_css, which reads CSS but does not copy it, and generate_stylesheet, which produces stylesheets rather than copying node properties.

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 clipboard destination implies the intended use case: when the agent needs to copy CSS properties for pasting elsewhere. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as read_node_css or mention when not to use this tool, so guidance is present but only implicit.

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