desktop_activate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly conveys that the tool mutates UI state by revealing a window and moving input focus, and it warns that the route is automatically selected. However, it does not explain potential side effects, failure conditions, or permissions, which is a meaningful gap for a focus-changing tool.

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 no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the follow-up observation instruction adds workflow value without 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?

The description provides a basic workflow and names the source of the window, which is good for a single-parameter tool. But with no output schema and no annotations, it omits expected return behavior, what 'automatically selected route' means for reliability, and what to do if activation fails. It is adequate but leaves clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions pulling a window 'from desktop_windows', which hints that window_id identifies a window from that list, but it never explicitly maps window_id to the window being activated or clarifies the expected format. The parameter meaning is left mostly to inference from the schema title.

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 states a specific action: reveal a window and establish input focus. It names desktop_windows as the source of the window, which differentiates it from sibling tools like desktop_observe or desktop_focus_element, though the phrase 'automatically selected route' is somewhat opaque.

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 workflow: get a window from desktop_windows, activate it, then observe again afterward. This gives helpful context about when to call the tool, but it does not explicitly state when to choose desktop_activate over alternatives such as desktop_focus_element or desktop_recover_input.

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