Save window layout

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

The annotations only declare the generic profile (not read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds real behavior beyond that: the previous manual save for these displays is overwritten, automatic background saves also exist, and critically 'Moves nothing' rules out the side effect an agent might otherwise fear. That is exactly the kind of nuance annotations cannot express.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the overwrite caveat, then the negative side-effect guarantee. No redundant restatement of the title and no filler.

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?

A zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool whose annotations already cover the safety profile needs only purpose, counterpart, and side effects — all three are present. Nothing an agent must know before calling is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and no schema gap to compensate for. Baseline applies; the scope phrase 'for the current display setup' usefully clarifies that the call is implicitly bound to the active display configuration.

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 ('Record') and a precise resource ('which Space and screen position every open window has, for the current display setup'), plus the downstream consumer (restore_window_layout). An agent can distinguish this from save_sessions or set_up_space without opening any 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?

The pairing with restore_window_layout makes the intended use cycle explicit, and the note that Spacepal also saves automatically gives context on when a manual save matters. It stops short of excluding the adjacent save_sessions / apply_profile alternatives by name, so the routing guidance is clear but not fully exhaustive.

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