edit_copy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the side effect (clipboard storage) and the input prerequisite (selection), but omits error behavior when nothing is selected, clipboard persistence details, or scope limitations.

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 with zero redundancy: the first states the core action, the second states the prerequisite. Information is front-loaded and every sentence 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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation constraint (selection requirement) and primary effect. It adequately supports the tool's limited complexity, though explicit error handling guidance would improve it to a 5.

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 contains zero parameters, establishing a baseline of 4 per the scoring rules. No parameter documentation is required or expected.

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 specific verb ('Copy'), identifies the resource ('selected audio'), and specifies the destination ('clipboard'). It clearly distinguishes from destructive siblings like edit_cut and destination-oriented siblings like edit_paste.

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 phrase 'Select a region first' provides a clear prerequisite for invocation, implicitly guiding users to selection tools (select_region, etc.) beforehand. However, it does not explicitly contrast usage with alternatives like edit_cut for different workflows.

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