glass_clipboard_set

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose a failure mode ('Returns Unsupported where the backend can't provide clipboard access') and notes the write action. However, it omits other behavioral details such as whether the clipboard is overwritten, whether any permissions are required, or the successful return value.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and every word contributes value. It includes both the main function and an important edge-case outcome without fluff.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter, and the description sufficiently covers its purpose, mutation effect, and a notable failure mode. No output schema exists, but the description hints at the return behavior. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke confidently, though it could mention what a successful call returns.

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 sole parameter 'text' is fully documented in the schema ('The text to write to the clipboard'), and the description adds no meaningful extra semantics. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Write') and resource ('app's clipboard'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling glass_clipboard_get. It also states the intended outcome ('so it can paste it'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious.

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 context for when to use the tool (to put text on the clipboard for pasting), but does not mention alternatives or when not to use it. No explicit comparison to sibling tools like glass_type or glass_key, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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