macos_clipboard_write

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the basic action but doesn't describe important traits: whether this overwrites existing clipboard content, if there are size limitations, if it requires specific permissions, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information immediately.

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 simple mutation tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose adequately. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should ideally mention what happens after writing (e.g., success confirmation, error conditions) or system-specific considerations for macOS clipboard operations.

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 description coverage is 100% with the single parameter 'text' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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 ('Write') and target resource ('text content to the system clipboard'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'macos_clipboard_read' by specifying the write operation, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all clipboard-related tools like 'macos_screenshot_clipboard'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when writing to the clipboard is appropriate compared to other clipboard operations or file operations, nor does it specify prerequisites like macOS-specific requirements or user permissions needed.

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