pt_set_clipboard

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Set the clipboard content') without revealing that it overwrites existing clipboard content, requires a simulator, or has any side effects. This is minimal transparency for a mutating tool.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core function ('Set the simulator's clipboard/pasteboard content') followed by a brief use-case note. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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 setter tool with two parameters and full schema coverage, the description adequately conveys purpose and typical usage. It lacks details like return value or side-effect warnings, but these are minor for this tool's complexity and are partially inferable from the action verb.

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 input schema fully documents both parameters (text and udid) with clear descriptions, so the schema covers 100% of the parameter semantics. The description adds no additional parameter-level insight beyond a general use context, aligning with the baseline score of 3.

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 specific verb ('Set') and resource ('simulator's clipboard/pasteboard content'), making the tool's function unambiguous. It naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pt_get_clipboard (read vs write) and pt_type_text (clipboard vs direct text input).

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 phrase 'Useful for preparing text to paste into fields' provides a concrete usage scenario, implying the tool is a setup step for pasting. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like pt_type_text or pt_fill_input, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., booted simulator).

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