focus_editor_window

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

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: the operation may be denied by the OS and the agent should abort rather than continue, and a screenshot is returned as a side effect. It does not reconcile the surprising destructiveHint=true annotation by explaining what state is altered (foreground/z-order), which would have earned a 5.

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, front-loaded with the action and its effect, followed by the failure caveat. No wasted words.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description rightly mentions the returned screenshot, but it leaves open how to obtain the windowId, what "observed" means, and why a focus operation is flagged destructive. Adequate to call the tool, incomplete for an agent that needs to chain it correctly.

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?

One parameter with 0% description coverage; the schema's pattern ^\d+:\d+$ conveys the id format but nothing about provenance. The word "observed" hints the id must come from a prior listing call, which is marginal added meaning over the schema.

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?

A specific verb and resource ("Bring an observed game/editor window to the foreground") plus a stated side effect (returns a fresh screenshot). It is distinguishable from list_editor_windows and capture_editor_window, though it does not explicitly say when to prefer it over the sibling capture tool that also returns screenshots.

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 gives a failure-path instruction ("do not proceed if it fails"), which is useful, but it never states when to call this instead of capture_editor_window or list_editor_windows, and it does not say how a window becomes "observed" in the first place. Usage is implied rather than specified.

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