write_clipboard

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the write behavior is known. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as overwriting existing clipboard content, permission requirements, or side effects. It simply restates the core function without going beyond the annotations.

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 one short sentence with no filler. It is appropriately front-loaded for a single-parameter tool and every word earns its place.

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 simple tool with one string parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate for an agent to call it correctly. It fully states the action and target; the only missing touches are edge-case notes like clipboard overwriting, but these are either implicit or covered by annotations.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It clarifies that 'text' is the content to write, which adds meaning beyond the raw property name and type, but it does not provide details on encoding, size limits, or formatting.

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 uses a specific verb ('write') and resource ('clipboard'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like read_clipboard and clear_clipboard. An agent can immediately understand the action and target.

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 description implies its usage (when you want to put text on the clipboard) but provides no explicit guidance about when to choose this over read_clipboard or clear_clipboard, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. It relies on the name and sibling list for context.

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