update_surface

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

The description only names the operations without disclosing side effects, reversibility, focus behavior, or interaction with other surfaces. Annotations are all false and provide no positive info, so the description carries the burden but fails to add behavioral detail.

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, direct sentence with no fluff, front-loaded and easy to parse. However, brevity comes at the cost of essential information, which is captured in other dimensions.

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?

With 10 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and only a vague operation summary, the description is drastically under-sized. The output schema does not compensate for missing input semantics, leaving the agent with insufficient context to invoke the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention any of the 10 parameters. The agent receives no explanation of 'surface', 'action', 'before', 'after', 'index', 'preserve_prefix', etc., making correct parameter construction impossible.

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 specific verb+resource: move or rename one terminal surface. Clearly distinguishes from siblings like close_surface (close) and list_surfaces (list), so an agent can tell them apart without opening the schema.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use move versus rename, or when this tool should be preferred over close_surface, send_to, or possibly wait_for. No exclusions or alternative routing is mentioned.

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