clipboard_set

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the core behavior (sets clipboard for immediate paste), the platform (Windows), and the temporary nature of the clipboard. It does not explicitly state that existing clipboard content is overwritten, but that is inherent to 'copy to clipboard.' The description adds adequate behavioral context for a simple tool.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence earns its place: action, context, use cases, and parameter requirement. No fluff or redundancy.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: purpose, usage scenarios, parameter requirement, and platform. It is complete within its complexity.

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 100%, and the schema already documents the 'text' parameter with an example. The description merely repeats that the parameter is required without adding new semantic detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('Copy text to the Windows system clipboard') and clearly distinguishes from siblings like clipboard_get by focusing on the set operation. It also lists concrete use cases, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 provides clear usage context ('copy command output', 'transfer text between applications', 'automate copy-paste workflows') but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with the sibling clipboard_get. This is clear context without exclusions, matching a 4.

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