clipboard_write

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

Annotations already declare this as a write, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: it only writes plain text, it replaces the existing clipboard contents, and it requires no permissions. It does not contradict any 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?

A single front-loaded sentence states the action and scope with no wasted words. The bracketed version/permission note is compact and does not obscure the core instruction.

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 write tool with an output schema, full parameter descriptions, and safety annotations, the description covers the essential purpose, text format, and permission level. It could more explicitly note the overwrite of prior clipboard contents or the optional human approval flow, but it 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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, including the required idempotency key and optional approval ID. The description adds only the 'explicit plain text' qualifier for the text parameter, which is marginal; 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?

States a specific verb ('Replace') and resource ('system clipboard'), plus the text scope ('explicit plain text'). It does not explicitly distinguish the operation from the sibling clipboard_read, but the action itself is unambiguous.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no conditions selecting it over clipboard_read, and no exclusions. It only states what the tool does, leaving usage context entirely to inference.

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