paste_text

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

With no annotations to lean on, the description carries the full burden and does an excellent job: it discloses clipboard side effects, the real paste mechanism, and the fallback path to synthetic event then native value setter. This gives the agent an accurate mental model of what happens when the tool runs.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then justifies the mechanism, and ends with the fallback behavior. Every sentence adds meaningful information, and the length is justified by the technical nuance being explained.

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?

The description thoroughly covers the behavior and the exact scenario where this tool is necessary, but it omits how to target the field via ref or selector and gives no indication of return values or failure behavior. It is viable but incomplete for correct usage in all cases.

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 provides no descriptions, so the description must compensate, but it only explains what 'text' is for. 'ref' and 'selector' are left unexplained, even though they appear to be how the target field is identified, which is critical for correct invocation.

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 names a specific action ('Fill a field with a REAL paste') and distinguishes it from ordinary typing or setting values by emphasizing the trusted paste event and clipboardData. It clearly communicates the unique behavior that differentiates this tool from fill/type_text/smart_fill siblings.

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 gives a clear when-to-use condition: frameworks that listen to paste alone, with concrete examples like Svelte 5 / SolidJS runes and some Qwik forms. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or give when-not-to-use guidance, so it stops short of a full 5.

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