set_clipboard

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive write. The description adds little beyond that: it does not say whether existing clipboard contents are overwritten, nor whether the action is silent or confirmed.

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?

Front-loaded one-sentence purpose followed by a compact Args block. The 'ready to paste' clause and the Args repetition are mild padding but nothing is wasted at length.

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, no-output-schema tool this is close to adequate, but it omits the one behavior that matters here: replacing whatever was previously on the clipboard. That gap leaves the agent without key state-change context.

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?

With one parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the schema carries no meaning beyond the type. The description's 'The text to copy' only loosely restates the parameter name rather than adding format, length, or encoding details.

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 ('Put') and resource ('text on the clipboard'), which naturally distinguishes it from the sibling get_clipboard. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly name the read-side counterpart.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as type_text for direct input. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'ready to paste'.

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