copy_to_clipboard

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes further by naming exactly what is destroyed ('REPLACES whatever the clipboard holds'), requiring the agent to notify the user, and documenting platform/back-end support (macOS, Windows, Linux wl-copy/xclip). This is precisely the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the destructive consequence, followed by the usage constraint and platform info. Every sentence carries information the agent needs; no 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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the side effect, the user-facing obligation, the return value, and cross-platform behavior. An agent has everything required to call it correctly and warn the user.

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% and the single 'path' parameter is fully documented in the schema (formats, tilde expansion). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies; the only added element ('Returns the path that was copied') concerns the result, not the input.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Put an image on the system clipboard') plus the downstream intent ('paste it into Slack, Jira or mail'), which is far more than a restatement of the name. It is also distinguishable from the sibling clipboard_image, which reads the clipboard rather than writing to it.

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?

Gives an explicit use condition ('use it only when they want to paste') and an explicit alternative ('otherwise give them the file path'), plus a procedural duty ('tell the user'). Nothing about when to reach for this tool versus an alternative is left to inference.

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