clipboard_write

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only states the operation and does not disclose that existing clipboard contents will be overwritten, any persistence or format limitations, or what the tool returns after completion.

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 a single, clearly structured sentence that states the action and target up front with zero redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a tool this simple.

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 definition is minimally adequate for a one-parameter write operation, but because there are no annotations and no output schema, it leaves small gaps such as overwrite behavior and return/error semantics. These gaps are not critical for a simple clipboard operation but prevent a higher score.

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 schema already fully describes the single required parameter ('text') with 100% coverage, so the description adds no extra semantic detail. It aligns correctly with the parameter's meaning but provides no additional formatting, encoding, or edge-case guidance.

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 clear action verb ('Write') and names the target resource ('macOS clipboard/pasteboard'), making the tool's function immediately obvious. It is naturally distinguished from the sibling clipboard_read by the write/read polarity.

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 implied use is to set the clipboard to the provided text, and the sibling clipboard_read suggests the complementary operation. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or scenario-based direction for preferring this tool over alternatives.

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