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

Annotations declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so safety is partly covered. The description still adds value by scoping the side effect ("does not change the content of files in the application") and by warning that display limits should be checked first, preempting an obvious failure mode. It does not say what happens when the requested size exceeds the display.

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 short sentences, with the core action front-loaded ahead of the caveats. The second sentence bundles two unrelated points (display limits, file content) a bit awkwardly but nothing is wasted.

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 full schema coverage and an output schema, the description needn't document parameters or return values. Its remaining gap is disambiguation from window_move_resize and window_maximize in a crowded window-management sibling group, which the description never addresses.

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% with 8 well-documented parameters including the backend enum, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about the identifier alternatives (id vs app vs pid vs title) or the backend choice, leaving it at the baseline for full coverage.

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 (resize an identified desktop window to a given width and height), which is concrete and unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from the closely related sibling window_move_resize or window_maximize, so an agent must infer the boundary 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?

"Inspect display limits first" gives one useful precondition before calling. However, no guidance is offered on when to prefer this over window_move_resize (position + size in one call) or window_maximize, which are the two most plausible alternatives in the sibling list.

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