move_window_to_workspace

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is carried by structured fields. The description adds nothing beyond them: it does not say whether the window follows to the new workspace (the schema's 'silent' does), what happens if the target workspace does not exist, or how the move affects the current workspace. With annotations covering safety, a middling 3 is appropriate.

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 zero padding, and the subject ('focused window') and target ('workspace number') are front-loaded. Nothing in it is wasted or redundant.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations supplying the safety profile, this is close to sufficient. The remaining gap is behavioral edge cases (invalid workspace numbers, whether the workspace must already exist) that an agent might want before calling.

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% and both parameters are documented inline (workspace as 'Target workspace number', silent as 'If true, don't follow the window'). The description adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 object ('Move the focused window') plus the target resource ('a specific workspace number'), which is more precise than a bare name restatement. It is distinguishable from switch_workspace or move_window by the 'focused window' subject, though it never names those siblings to sharpen the contrast.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance appears beyond the implicit action itself. Nothing tells the agent how this differs from move_window, move_workspace_to_monitor, or switch_workspace when choosing among them.

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