tool_clipboard_write

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly labels the tool as MUTATING, warns that it DESTROYS the user's last copied content, mentions serialization across sessions, and instructs the agent to announce the action. This exceeds typical disclosure.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The primary action is front-loaded, and the critical warnings are placed immediately after, making the most important information easy to scan.

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 one-parameter write tool, the description covers the action, destructive consequences, persistence behavior, and usage caution. The presence of an output schema means return-value details are unnecessary here, so the description is complete for safe 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?

The schema has no descriptions for the single 'text' parameter, and the description only vaguely maps to it via 'with text.' This provides basic meaning but does not fully compensate for the 0% schema coverage, so it lands at an adequate but not exceptional level.

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 opens with 'Replace the clipboard contents with text,' which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly identifies the tool as the write counterpart to clipboard_read and leaves no ambiguity about its function.

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 advises against casual use and instructs the agent to announce the action, giving clear context for safe usage. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when not to use it beyond the strong caution, so it falls just short of a 5.

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