clipboard_write

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It correctly conveys that this mutates shared clipboard state which persists for later pasting, but it never states that existing clipboard contents are overwritten, nor anything about permissions or failure modes.

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?

One sentence, zero waste, with the action front-loaded and the user-facing consequence appended. Nothing to trim.

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 one-parameter write with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential effect. The only meaningful omission is that it silently replaces whatever was previously on the clipboard.

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 coverage is 100% with a single required parameter already documented as 'The text to copy'. The description adds no formatting, length, or encoding guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Put text on the clipboard' names exactly what happens, and the trailing clause clarifies the observable effect (user pastes it in any app). Sibling clipboard_read is the obvious counterpart, but the description never names it explicitly, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

'so the user can paste it in any app' hints at the situation where this is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, and no reference to clipboard_read or to type_text as an alternative for entering text directly.

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