restore_owned_window

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it delivers almost none. It does not say whether restoring brings the window to the foreground, whether it interrupts or pauses ongoing automation, whether the change persists, or how to undo it (minimize_owned_window exists but is unmentioned). For a window-state mutation in a large automation suite this is a significant gap.

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 qualified with the condition for use. Nothing is padded, though the qualifier 'explicitly requested' is slightly vague and could be tightened.

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 there are no parameters to document. But with zero annotations, the description leaves unaddressed whether this action interferes with background work or how it relates to minimize/return-to-background siblings, which an agent needs before invoking it.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline rule the schema fully covers semantics and the description needs to add nothing. No parameter confusion is possible.

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 verb phrase ('Show ... headed browser') conveys the basic effect, but 'restore_owned_window' is not distinguished from nearby siblings like minimize_owned_window, open_account_browser, or owned_window_status. An agent can guess this makes a window visible but cannot confidently separate it from the alternatives from the description alone.

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 phrase 'for explicitly requested user interaction' implies a usage condition (only when the user asks to see/interact), which is more than nothing. However, it gives no exclusions and never names an alternative (e.g., use read_owned_browser_view if you only need to observe), so the agent must infer the routing.

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