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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower, and the description adds real value by clarifying that the process keeps running and nothing is terminated. It does not cover what happens if the window handle is stale or whether repeated calls are safe (idempotentHint=false), which leaves a small gap.

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?

Two tight sentences, with the primary action and its non-destructive scope front-loaded and the disambiguation clause second. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. Purpose, effect scope, and the prerequisite are all stated; only the selector-combination semantics are left unaddressed for a 6-parameter tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, including a detailed backend enum explanation, so the baseline is 3. The description only hints that a window must be selected first; it adds nothing about how the id/app/pid/title selectors combine (AND vs OR) or which is preferred, which is the one thing the schema does not resolve.

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 ('minimize a selected application window') plus the scope of the effect ('while leaving the application running'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from window_close/force_terminate by saying it 'does not close the window or terminate its process', so an agent can pick it apart from its nearest siblings without opening a schema.

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 gives a precondition ('Identify the window first'), which signals that a window must be located before calling, but it never names the alternative tools (list_windows, window_restore, window_maximize) or states when to prefer restoring versus minimizing. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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