copy_selected_items

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It says items go to the clipboard but not whether the source selection is preserved, whether the operation is undoable, whether it works across item types (MIDI/audio), or what happens when nothing is selected — all relevant for a clipboard mutation.

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?

A single four-word sentence with zero padding, and the verb is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized, though it is terse enough that it sacrifices useful detail.

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 zero-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally viable: it conveys the basic action but omits behavioral context (undo behavior, selection state, item-type scope) that would help an agent use it correctly alongside cut_selected_items and paste_items.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter-level content because none is needed.

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 states a specific verb ('Copy') and resource ('selected items') plus the destination ('clipboard'), which clearly differentiates it from get_selected_items and select_all_items. It does not explicitly contrast with cut_selected_items, which performs a similar copy but also removes the source, leaving sibling differentiation implicit.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus cut_selected_items, paste_items, or duplicate_item, nor any prerequisite (e.g., a prior selection). The agent must infer usage entirely from the verb.

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