move_window

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

Annotations already state this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation, so safety framing is covered. The description adds the relative-delta nature of the change, but omits key behavioral facts: which window is targeted, what happens if the window is tiled, and whether movement is clamped to screen bounds.

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?

One short sentence with no filler and the key constraint ('floating') front-loaded. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves room for a clarifying clause at no real length cost.

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 2-parameter, no-output-schema tool this is nearly adequate, but the agent still cannot determine the target window or the behavior on non-floating windows from description, schema, or annotations alone.

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% and both properties are documented as 'Pixel delta for X axis'/'Y axis'. The description's 'by a pixel delta' merely restates that, adding no new meaning such as sign conventions or whether negative values move left/up.

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 ('Move a floating window') plus the unit of motion ('by a pixel delta'), which cleanly separates it from resize_window and move_window_to_workspace. Sibling differentiation is implied by 'floating' but the description never explicitly says tiled windows are excluded.

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 word 'floating' hints at the precondition, but there is no explicit 'use this when…' guidance, no mention of which window is affected (focused window assumed), and no named alternative for windows that are tiled or for absolute positioning.

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