clipboard_write

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool will write and then read back to verify, that it goes through gnome-shell/mutter rather than an external client, why that matters (bug S-018), and that the wl-copy fallback says when it is used. This is unusually transparent about side effects and implementation behavior.

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, front-loaded with the core action and verification guarantee, followed by a concise rationale for the implementation choice. The mutter bug detail earns its place by explaining why the fallback exists and why the extension path is preferred.

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 explains purpose, mechanism, verification, and fallback behavior, and the schema completes parameter semantics. The main gap is that without an output schema, return/error behavior is only implicit ('prove it landed' and the fallback 'says so'), so an agent might not know exactly what to expect on success or failure.

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?

The input schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, including the 'text OR path+mimetype' constraint and the role of mimetype. The description adds only the high-level 'text or a file's bytes' framing, which does not materially deepen parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 and resource: 'Put text or a file's bytes on the clipboard.' It also explains the mechanism (gnome-shell extension) and distinctly implies the inverse operation of the sibling clipboard_read, so an agent can tell it apart without opening schemas.

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?

It gives context about when the extension path is used and mentions wl-copy as a fallback that identifies itself when used, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over clipboard_read or any alternative. The usage guidance is mostly implied by the tool name and action, not stated as routing rules.

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