move_resize_window

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that apps with size steps or limits may end up smaller and that the result reports actual geometry. However, it does not cover permissions, failure modes, or whether the move is screen-absolute or workspace-relative, leaving significant gaps for a mutation 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?

The description is two focused sentences with no wasted wording. The core operation is front-loaded, and the caveat about size steps and actual geometry is relevant and brief.

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 the description need not explain return values, and it appropriately notes that the result reports actual geometry. However, for a mutation tool with five required parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, it should say more about coordinate semantics, window_id expectations, and failure behavior.

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 for all five parameters. It meaningfully clarifies that x/y place the outer frame and that width/height refer to outer size including title bar and borders, which is important information beyond the bare schema. It still leaves window_id undocumented and does not specify the coordinate origin or units, so compensation is only partial.

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 verb and resource: place a window's frame at (x, y) with an outer size. It also clarifies that the frame includes title bar and borders, which distinguishes this from a generic position change. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like window_action or tile_windows, so it falls short of a 5.

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 explains what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as window_action or tile_windows. It also omits prerequisites like whether the window must exist or whether coordinates are relative to the whole desktop or a workspace.

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