editor_copy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It clearly states the action: copying selected nodes to the editor clipboard. While it doesn't disclose details like clipboard overwrite behavior or failure conditions if no nodes are selected, the operation is inherently simple and non-destructive, and the description matches the expected 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?

The description is a single sentence that gets straight to the point: 'Copy selected nodes to the editor clipboard.' Every word is necessary, and it is efficiently front-loaded with the core action.

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?

This is a very simple tool with no parameters and no output schema. The description fully explains what the tool does, and no additional context is needed to invoke it correctly. It is complete for its simplicity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details because none are needed; the input schema is empty and there is nothing to clarify.

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' and clearly identifies the resource: 'selected nodes to the editor clipboard'. It is unambiguous and distinguishes from sibling tools like editor_cut (which also involves copying but with deletion) and editor_paste (which places clipboard contents).

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 implicitly indicates when to use the tool (when you want to copy selected nodes to the clipboard), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. There is no guidance comparing it to editor_cut or editor_duplicate_node, so usage context is only implied.

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