human_paste

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

The description adds useful context beyond the destructiveHint annotation: 'may modify content' warns of mutation and 'No clipboard content inspection' clarifies that it does not read clipboard data. It still does not explain focus requirements, clipboard prerequisites, or what happens to existing selected content, which matters for a paste operation.

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 very short and front-loaded: action first, then mutation warning, then clipboard-inspection limitation. It is concise, though the fragmentary phrasing is terse to the point of feeling cryptic.

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, non-idempotent tool with a required window handle and a nested pause-policy object, the description is far too sparse. It gives no explanation of targeting, pause behavior, thresholds, or clipboard prerequisites, and there is no output schema to fill in return semantics.

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 none of the three parameters. The required hwnd value, the nested pause_policy fields, and threshold_px are completely unexplained, so the description does not compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 names a specific action, 'Explicit Ctrl+V,' so an agent can tell it performs a paste keystroke rather than reading the clipboard. It does not explicitly mention that the paste is directed at a target window identified by hwnd, leaving the resource context partly implicit.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of siblings like human_type, human_key, human_copy, or human_cut. 'Explicit Ctrl+V' and 'No clipboard content inspection' imply some usage, but the agent is left to infer the selection conditions.

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