human_cut

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-read-only, and 'may modify content' is largely a restatement of that. The description does add genuinely new context—this is an explicit synthetic keystroke and the clipboard contents are not inspected or verified—which helps the agent understand failure modes, but permissions and target-focus requirements remain unstated.

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the action, and each clause carries information (action, side effect, limitation). The fragmentary style is efficient though slightly cryptic in places.

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 destructive tool with a nested timing/threshold configuration object and no output schema, the definition leaves too much unexplained: what hwnd must reference, what pause_policy actually governs (input-stability pacing), and what the caller observes after the keystroke. Annotations cover safety only.

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 0% and the description mentions no parameters at all. The tool has a required hwnd plus a nested pause_policy object with seven sub-properties (stable_ms, window_ms, lifetime_ms, etc.) and a threshold_px, all of which are documented only by bare min/max bounds, so the description entirely fails to compensate.

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?

Names the concrete action (Ctrl+X) and the resource implicitly (current selection to clipboard), which distinguishes it from human_copy/paste in the sibling list without an explicit comparison. It is clear but telegraphic rather than a full statement of purpose.

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?

'Explicit Ctrl+X' gives an implied context (send the cut shortcut) but there is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites such as the target window needing focus, and no routing to human_copy or human_key for other editing operations.

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