browser_clipboard_write_image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the action and purpose but offers no additional details about side effects (e.g., overwriting existing clipboard contents), prerequisites (e.g., active browser session), or failure modes. It is not misleading, but it fails to convey any behavior beyond the literal operation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no superfluous words. It conveys the action and purpose efficiently, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 single-parameter write operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what to provide (local image file) and the intended outcome (paste into a page). It does not mention potential edge cases like unsupported image formats or clipboard behavior, but given the tool's simplicity, the description is largely sufficient.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% – the schema already fully describes the path parameter as an absolute path to a local image file. The description does not add any additional semantic detail or format guidance beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for fully covered parameters.

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 clearly states the action (put a local image file onto the system clipboard) and the intended purpose (pasting into a page). It distinguishes itself from sibling browser_clipboard_write by specifying 'image file' and from read operations like browser_clipboard_read_image. The verb-resource pair is specific and unambiguous.

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 implies usage: when you have a local image file to place on the clipboard for pasting. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, such as 'use browser_clipboard_write for text'. Given the clear name and sibling context, the intended usage is inferable, but explicit when-to-use guidance is missing.

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