minimize_owned_window

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose one meaningful trait: no focus or visibility emulation side effects. It does not say whether the minimized state persists, how to undo it (restore_owned_window), or whether the operation requires an attached browser session.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the action and immediately qualified. No filler, nothing repeated from structured fields.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and with zero parameters the surface is small. The only gap is the missing pointer to restore_owned_window for reversing the action.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to document about inputs. The statement about focus/visibility correctly signals the tool takes no behavioral arguments.

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 (minimize) and a specific resource (this owned browser), and adds a scope qualifier clarifying it will not emulate focus or visibility. That distinguishes it from viewport/focus-emulation siblings like use_window_viewport, though it never names restore_owned_window as the inverse operation.

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?

'do not emulate focus or visibility' implies the context in which this tool is appropriate rather than an alternative, and no sibling is named as a substitute. An agent can infer the intended situation but gets no explicit when-not or prerequisite guidance.

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