paste_text

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates external state. The description adds the clipboard-mediated mechanism and the speed rationale, but does not itself disclose the clipboard-clobbering risk or the confirmation/permission requirements (those live in the schema). With annotations carrying the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentences, zero filler: the action is front-loaded, the routing rationale follows. Nothing is redundant with the title or schema.

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 high-risk mutation tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description supplies the missing purpose and selection guidance. It could go slightly further on failure behavior or clipboard side effects, but the essential call-time information is present.

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%, so every parameter (app selector, text, restore_delay, restore_clipboard, prefer_related, confirmation_token) is already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Paste text through the clipboard into the target app") and immediately distinguishes itself from the key-by-key typing siblings. An agent can select it correctly without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly enumerates when to prefer this tool (multiline, tabular, CSV/TSV, Unicode-heavy, long text) and names the tradeoff against the alternative ("much faster than key-by-key typing"). This is a clear when-to-use rule that routes the agent away from type_text/type/key.

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