copy_to_clipboard

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

Annotations only give readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false. The description adds the traits that actually matter here: default field behavior, auto-clear after N seconds, and the security property that the agent never observes the value. It doesn't say whether the clipboard write is reversible/overwrites prior contents or what happens if the copy fails, which keeps it from a 5.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the clearing behavior, then the security guarantee. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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 4-parameter tool at 0% schema coverage with no output schema, the description covers the security behavior well but leaves real gaps: the unexplained 'purpose' parameter and the ambiguous role of the required 'ref' versus the 'default: main secret' claim. Adequate to invoke in the common case, incomplete for anything off the default path.

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 carry all four parameters. It explains the default field and gives example field values, and roughly covers 'seconds' ('auto-clears after N seconds'), but says nothing about the 'purpose' parameter and never clarifies what 'ref' is (credential id, name, or alias) or why it is required despite the phrase 'default: main secret'.

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 concrete verb+resource+destination ('Copy a secret ... to the macOS clipboard') and immediately clarifies scope with the field options ('main secret', 'username', 'totp', any field). The clause 'the agent never sees it' sharply distinguishes it from value-returning siblings like get_credential.

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?

'For the human to paste' plus 'the agent never sees it' tells the agent exactly the situation this tool exists for: when the secret must reach the user's clipboard without entering model context. It does not explicitly name the alternative (get_credential) or say when NOT to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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