computer.set_clipboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of revealing behavior. It clearly identifies that the operation writes to the clipboard, but it does not explicitly mention that existing clipboard contents are replaced, nor does it discuss errors or return behavior. This is adequate for a simple setter but not richly transparent.

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 front-loads the action and appends a useful parenthetical use case. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or filler.

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 setter, the core purpose and use case are present, but the absence of annotations and an output schema leaves overwrite behavior and success/failure semantics unstated. The description is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description helps by indicating that the sole parameter 'text' is the content to be written. However, it adds no format, length, or encoding details; the single self-explanatory parameter keeps this from being a serious weakness.

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 uses a specific verb ('Write') and resource ('clipboard') to state exactly what the tool does, and the parenthetical 'useful as a typing fallback' adds a helpful intended-use cue. It distinguishes the tool from get_clipboard and typing-oriented siblings, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 'typing fallback' phrase gives a clear context for when to reach for this tool: when direct keyboard typing is not practical. It does not name sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a full routing guide.

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