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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the mutation and safety profile are covered. The description adds that it is project-scoped and returns the project identity, which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose behavior like error conditions or what happens if no frame exists, though idempotency covers some of that. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the project-scope warning, and contains no filler. Every clause adds value: the scope constraint, the effect, and the return info. It is exemplary in brevity and 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 simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what it removes, the effect, and the return value. It does not detail error handling or side effects beyond the project scope, but given the tool's simplicity and the annotations covering idempotency and non-destructiveness, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the project_id parameter. The description adds the caution that the active-project pointer is never used to guess, which is critical semantic context not in the schema. This enhances the parameter's meaning beyond its type and required status.

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 clearly states the action: removing the floating rounded window and restoring full-bleed. It identifies the resource and effect, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like remove_screen_takeover or set_screen_frame, though the inverse relationship with set_screen_frame is implied. It is sufficiently specific to distinguish itself.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use remove_screen_takeover or set_screen_frame. It only clarifies the project-scoped nature, which is a usage constraint but not a selection criterion. There is no mention of exclusions or conditions that would route an agent to a different tool.

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