paste_items

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=false, so the description must carry most behavioral disclosure. It states the action and location accurately, but does not explain side effects such as whether pasted items are selected, how an empty clipboard is handled, or whether the operation can be undone. This is acceptable for a simple paste command 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the action, source, and destination with no wasted words. Every part contributes meaning.

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 paste operation with only a destructiveHint annotation, the description provides the essential context: what is pasted, where it comes from, and where it goes. It does not describe return values or errors, but given the low complexity, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 has zero parameterswit schema coverage 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details because none exist, and none are 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 uses a specific verb ('paste') and resource ('items'), adds the source ('from clipboard') and destination ('at edit cursor'). It clearly distinguishes this from the many item manipulation siblings such as delete_item or duplicate_item.

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 provides clear operational context: paste occurs from the clipboard at the edit cursor subset. There are no competing paste tools among the siblings, so alternative routing is not needed. It does not explicitly state prerequisites such as having copied or cut items first, but the clipboard source makes the intended workflow evident.

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