clipboard

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

The description states write 'overwrites whatever the user had copied, which is not recoverable' — a non-additive, irreversible replacement of existing data — while the annotations declare destructiveHint=false. Despite the otherwise valuable side-effect disclosure (tab/window activation, empty-clipboard behavior), the description directly contradicts the destructive annotation.

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?

Dense, front-loaded, and free of filler: purpose first, then side effects, then the routing advice. Tight overall, though the 'its window' antecedent is slightly loose and it packs several directives into one sentence.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully covers read's return edge case (empty clipboard -> ''), tab/window activation, and overwrite risk. It still says nothing about write's return value, but for a 3-param tool this is largely complete.

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% (action enum, text 'For write', tab_id fallback are all documented in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description adds only one behavioral detail relevant to parameters (empty clipboard returns text ''), not additional semantics for text or tab_id beyond what the schema already says.

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 opening sentence gives a precise verb+resource ('Read or write the system clipboard') and scopes it to text, immediately distinguishing it from text-input siblings like type_text. An agent knows exactly what this operates on.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent: 'To fill a field use type_text instead of write and paste,' and explains the read use case ('checks what a Copy button copied'). This is an explicit when-to-use / when-to-use-something-else statement, not just implied context.

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