move_window

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining window identification semantics (exact handle vs. case-insensitive title substring) and the return format (updated geometry or error). Annotations already cover mutation (readOnlyHint=false), idempotency, and non-destructiveness, so this extra context is sufficient, though it does not clarify precedence if both handle and title are provided.

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 front-loaded with the primary action, uses a compact Args/Returns structure, and every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and presence of an output schema, the description covers the core operation, identification methods, and return value. It lacks minor details such as coordinate system origin or behavior when both handle and title are provided, but these are not critical for basic usage.

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% per context, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that handle is preferred and exact, title is substring, and x/y are new position coordinates. However, it omits details about the display parameter and does not explicitly map all schema fields (e.g., units for x/y, display specifics), leaving needed compensation incomplete.

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: 'Move a window to a new top-left screen position.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like resize_window and window_action by focusing on positional movement, and it also specifies the target identification method (handle or title).

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 implies when to use the tool: whenever a window needs to be repositioned on screen. It provides identification guidance (handle preferred, title substring) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as for resizing or other window actions.

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