real_paste

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses that the tool clicks at viewport coordinates, writes to the system clipboard, and sends a real Ctrl+V keystroke, which is strong transparency about side effects. It could additionally mention clipboard overwriting or failure behavior, but the main risky behaviors are stated.

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?

One tightly packed sentence delivers the operation, the mechanism, and the use case with no filler. Key information is front-loaded and every phrase 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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly: target coordinates, clipboard involvement, Ctrl+V behavior, and a clue about when it is needed. It omits explicit failure conditions and clipboard-replacement warnings, but the main invocation context is well covered.

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 only 40%, but the description compensates by mapping x/y to viewport coordinates, text to the clipboard payload, and the overall action to a paste. The gate parameter is covered only in the schema, and frameId is left implicit, so not every parameter is fully explained, but the core ones are.

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 clearly names the operation as a 'GENUINE paste into a focused editor' and spells out the mechanism: click at coordinates, use the system clipboard, and send a real Ctrl+V. The 'for Lexical/…' qualifier signals the intended niche, distinguishing it from sibling tools like type_text or press_key.

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 when to use this tool: when a genuine OS-level paste is needed, such as in Lexical or similar rich-text editors where synthetic input may fail. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the 'real Ctrl+V' and 'GENUINE' wording provides useful situational context.

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