set_clipboard_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and return format. It doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like: what happens to existing clipboard content, whether this requires specific permissions, platform limitations, or potential side effects. The return value description is minimal ('Success or error message').

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 appropriately concise with a clear structure: purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Each sentence serves a purpose, though the 'Returns' description could be more informative. The formatting with clear sections makes it easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (though not shown here) and only one parameter, the description is minimally complete. However, for a clipboard manipulation tool with no annotations, it should provide more context about system interactions, permissions, and limitations. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values in detail, but behavioral context is still lacking.

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 description provides the parameter name and its purpose ('Text to set in clipboard'), which adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema's 0% description coverage. Since there's only one parameter and the schema provides no descriptions, the tool description adequately explains what the parameter represents, though it could provide more context about text length limits or formatting requirements.

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 the tool's purpose ('Set clipboard text'), which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_clipboard_text' beyond the obvious directionality (set vs get), and the purpose is somewhat basic without additional context about what system clipboard is being targeted.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While 'get_clipboard_text' is clearly a complementary tool, the description doesn't mention it or provide any context about prerequisites, limitations, or appropriate use cases for setting clipboard text.

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