copy_to_clipboard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the platform ('macOS') and that the target is the system clipboard (a global side effect), but it does not say that existing clipboard contents are overwritten or whether the operation can fail.

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?

One short sentence that is fully front-loaded with verb and resource, with no wasted words.

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 tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the definition is sufficient to call it, but it omits the overwrite behavior and success/failure semantics that a mutating system-level tool would ideally state.

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?

There is a single 'text' parameter whose schema description is complete (100% coverage), so the description correctly adds no further parameter detail. Baseline 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') and resource ('text to the macOS system clipboard'), and the directionality ('to') makes the contrast with the sibling read_from_clipboard unambiguous. Nothing about the intent is left ambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied by the name and description; there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus alternatives or of any preconditions. For such a simple, self-evident tool this is minimally adequate.

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