desktop-touch-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: it overwrites existing clipboard content (destructive behavior), does not support non-text data like images or files (limitations), and operates on the Windows clipboard (platform-specific). This covers critical aspects like data loss and compatibility constraints.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first, followed by usage context and caveats. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, and behavioral traits, but lacks details on error handling or return values. However, for a clipboard write operation, this is sufficient for effective use.

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 the single parameter 'text' well-documented in the schema. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as formatting or encoding details. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 specific action ('Place text on the Windows clipboard') and resource ('clipboard'), distinguishing it from its sibling 'clipboard_read' which reads instead of writes. It explicitly mentions the platform (Windows) and the type of data handled (text), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 when to use this tool ('Useful for seeding clipboard content before pasting, or for sharing data between tools without typing'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. It implies usage scenarios without detailing exclusions or comparing to other clipboard or data-sharing methods.

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