desktop_activate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that activation is followed by focus verification and advises re-observing afterward. It does not detail side effects like focus shifting from the previously active window or possible failure cases, but it does convey the core behavioral sequence.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences that front-load the primary action and include the necessary follow-up guidance. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 one-parameter tool, the description is largely complete: it tells where to get the ID, what action to perform, and what to do after. The absence of an output schema means the return value is not described, but 'verify focus' hints at the expected outcome.

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?

The schema only provides a string window_id with no description. The tool description adds the key semantic meaning: the window_id comes from desktop_windows. For a single-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, this is meaningful compensation even though it does not describe the exact format.

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: activate a window, and it specifies the source (desktop_windows) and the verification behavior (verify focus). This distinguishes it from related tools like desktop_windows (listing) and desktop_observe (observing).

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 implies a clear workflow: get a window from desktop_windows, activate it, verify focus, then observe again afterward. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives such as desktop_focus_element.

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