document.copy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the clipboard is in-process and shared with the GUI (Edit → Copy / Cmd-C), which is real behavioral context. But it doesn't say that copying overwrites existing clipboard contents, nor mention interactions with clipboard.peek/clear.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then default behavior, then the clipboard-sharing note. Every sentence adds distinct information with no waste.

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 single-optional-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers action, default behavior, and clipboard scope. It could be more complete by noting that existing clipboard contents are replaced, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it defines the shape_ids parameter's type-meaning and, importantly, the omit semantics (defaults to all shapes on the current slide). That goes meaningfully beyond the bare array schema.

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 verb and resource ('Copy the given shape ids') and the destination ('in-process clipboard'), so an agent knows exactly what the operation does. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like document.copy_slide or document.duplicate, but the clipboard destination implicitly separates it from those.

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?

It states the default behavior when shape_ids is omitted (all shapes on the current slide), which is useful usage context. However, it gives no guidance on when to choose this over document.cut or document.duplicate, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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