paste

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so exceptionally well. It discloses that only the device clipboard is affected (host clipboard untouched), that a paste shortcut is triggered, that it returns `{ pasted: true }`, and it lists specific failure conditions (TV target, clipboard failure, missing simulator-server support). It also explains the secret placeholder behavior and that secrets are never echoed back.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core behavior, and every sentence earns its place: mechanism, usage boundaries, prerequisites, return value, failure modes, and secret handling. 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?

The description is complete for a tool of this complexity. It covers what happens, when to use it, prerequisites, return shape, failure conditions, and security-relevant secret behavior. The absence of an output schema is mitigated because the return value is explicitly stated.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with detailed per-parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds organic context beyond the schema: the text parameter's clipboard-vs-host behavior, the same-source relationship with `keyboard` for secrets, and the requirement that the target field have focus. This adds meaningful conceptual value, though the schema already documents the main mechanics.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Paste text into the focused field', and explains the mechanism clearly (device clipboard + platform paste shortcut). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling `keyboard` tool, both in purpose and in the user-action model.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use `paste` only where a real user would paste, such as 2FA codes, long links/tokens, or testing paste handling. It also gives a clear negative instruction: 'Do NOT use this in place of `keyboard`', and provides a prerequisite step ('Tap the field first').

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