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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the queueing mechanism (ATTENTION_FOCUS_V1 sticky on same bus as spawn), the non-injecting nature, and the write-tier approval behavior with from-now-on vs just-once distinctions. This is substantial behavioral context, though it stops short of describing failure modes or return values.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, followed by usage examples, behavioral notes, and approval details. Each sentence adds relevant information, though the bracketed approval note adds length.

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?

With no output schema, the description gives context on when to use, behavior, and approval, but doesn't mention what the response contains or error scenarios (e.g., invalid session_id). Overall it's sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 already documents all four parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds the guidance to use session_id from list_attention_sessions, which reinforces the parameter's purpose but doesn't add syntax or format beyond 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 explicitly states the action ('Raise an EXISTING coding tab'), the resource (operator's desk/tab), and the OS focus effect. It includes example user phrases and differentiates from siblings like spawn/close/transfer by noting it works on existing tabs only.

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?

It provides explicit trigger phrases ('show me that Grok', 'bring up Claude'), states what it does not do ('Does not inject work'), and recommends pairing with create_attention_directive for pushing work. It also advises using after list_attention_sessions matched a live session_id.

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