window_action

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

With zero annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does so for the risky path: it discloses the mechanism (XKillClient disconnects the client from the display), the escalation (it then kills the process if that survives), and the safer alternative. It does not state whether the toggles are reversible/safe or what happens on an invalid window_id, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by a focused hazard note. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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 not be explained, and the destructive semantics are covered well. Remaining gaps are the toggle actions' effects and error behavior for a bad or missing window_id.

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 covers window_id's default (the focused window) and details the 'kill' enum value, but adds nothing about the two toggle values or any constraints on window_id, leaving a meaningful share of parameter meaning unstated.

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 concrete verb+resource ("apply an action to a window") and scopes it with a default target. The action enum values are visible in the schema but only 'kill' is explained in prose, so the reader must infer what the two toggle actions do.

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?

Gives explicit routing for the destructive path — "use close_window first" — which is the highest-value guidance here. However, no guidance is offered for choosing between the toggle actions or for when to supply an explicit window_id versus relying on the focused window.

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