clipboard_set

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

The description aligns with the 'destructiveHint: true' annotation, confirming mutation. However, it adds little behavioral context beyond the annotation—no mention of overwrite behavior, permission requirements, or error conditions. With annotations already indicating destructiveness, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It is perfectly front-loaded.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It states the action and target. A minor gap is the lack of detail on whether the clipboard is overwritten or if any pre-existing content is affected.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'text'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's type 'string'. It fails to specify expected format, length limits, or encoding.

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 'Write a string to the X11 CLIPBOARD selection' clearly states the verb (write), resource (string to clipboard), and platform (X11). It effectively distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'clipboard_get' which reads the clipboard.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool or when to use alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, side effects, or conditions under which the tool should not be used.

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