clipPut

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds a genuine precondition (trusted owner, interactive Windows x64 desktop) that the annotations do not convey, but it never discloses that the operation overwrites existing clipboard contents, which is the key destructive consequence.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler and the environment constraint front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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, open-world clipboard mutation with no output schema, the definition omits what happens to pre-existing clipboard data, any permissions/trust model detail beyond the phrase 'trusted owner', and any failure behavior. It is not sufficient for an agent to call this safely and correctly.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Text to put in the clipboard' with a maxLength of 65535), so the schema carries the semantic load. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which matches the baseline 3 for high coverage.

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 is essentially a restatement of the tool name ('Windows AutoIt clipPut') and never states in plain terms that it writes text into the clipboard. An agent must infer the verb+resource from the name, and the sibling clipGet is not contrasted. It falls between tautology and a vague 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?

The only guidance is an environment precondition ('requires a trusted owner and an interactive Windows x64 desktop'). There is no when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no pointer to clipGet as the read counterpart, so the agent must guess at routing and applicability.

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