edit_paste

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 core action (paste from clipboard) and the stateful dependency on the current selection. However, it doesn't mention side effects such as whether pasting inserts or overwrites existing audio, what happens if the clipboard is empty, or whether the operation is undoable. These gaps keep it below a 4.

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 no wasted words. The primary action is stated first, followed by the key prerequisite. The structure is ideal for quick agent comprehension.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essential information: what the tool does and the required precondition. Minor details like error handling for empty clipboard or missing selection are not specified, but the instruction to select first mitigates that risk. Overall it is adequately complete for this simple operation.

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 has zero properties, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaningful implicit-parameter semantics by explaining that the destination is the start of the current selection, set via select_region or cursor_set. This clarifies stateful behavior beyond the empty 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Paste audio from clipboard at the start of the current selection.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling edit tools like edit_cut or edit_copy, which perform different operations. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 provides an explicit prerequisite: 'Select the destination position first with select_region (or cursor_set).' This tells the agent what to do before invoking the tool. It doesn't explicitly discuss alternatives, but among the siblings there is no other paste tool, so no exclusion is necessary.

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