glass_clipboard_set

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds a specific error condition ('Returns Unsupported where the backend can't provide clipboard access'), which goes beyond the annotations. This is useful context about a failure mode that an agent would not otherwise know.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is in the first sentence, and the error condition in the second. Every word contributes to the tool's understanding.

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 one-parameter write operation with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and the only notable edge case (Unsupported backend). It does not mention return values on success, but that is implied for a write operation and not essential. The absence of output schema means the description isn't required to explain return format.

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% for the single 'text' parameter, with a clear description ('The text to write to the clipboard.'). The tool description does not add any additional meaning or nuance beyond the schema's own documentation, so it meets the baseline but adds no extra value.

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 clear verb ('Write') and resource ('text to the app's clipboard'), with an explicit purpose ('so it can paste it'). It is easily distinguishable from its sibling 'glass_clipboard_get' since it names the opposite action (write vs. get).

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 usage context is implied by the tool's name and description (write text to clipboard), but no explicit guidance is given about when to use this versus the sibling 'glass_clipboard_get' or any exclusions. The description does not mention alternatives, so it relies on the agent to infer from the sibling list.

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