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

Annotations already declare the write/mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the safety bar is lower. The description adds that effects are immediate and equivalent to the user's own clicks, which is useful context, but says nothing about reversibility, failures, or whether 'close' loses state.

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?

Front-loaded and free of filler, but rendered as a single run-on sentence with deeply nested parentheses that makes the subcommand grammar hard to scan. Compact in length, weak in structure.

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 7-parameter tool with an output schema (so return values need not be explained), the description covers all four commands, their parameter combinations, and the usage gate. Only minor omissions remain, such as the undocumented 'ring' window value and undefined behavior for incomplete command/parameter combinations.

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?

Schema coverage is only 14% (session alone), so the description must carry the load, and it largely does: it maps each cmd to its companion parameters (win+state for window, preset for layout, win+slot for move, project for focus), which is the co-occurrence logic the schema cannot express. It does omit the 'ring' win value present in the enum, a small gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: change the person's call page layout immediately, with an explicit subcommand breakdown (window/layout/move/focus) that maps onto the cmd enum. An agent can tell it mutates the live UI. However, it never distinguishes itself from siblings like 'show', 'activity', or 'status', which also touch what the user sees, leaving overlap unresolved.

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?

Provides an explicit gating condition ('only when the person asks for it or it clearly helps') plus a concrete example (open decisions after asking one), and rules out narration ('never spoken'). It stops short of naming any alternative tool or stating when NOT to use it versus siblings.

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