desktop_window_resize

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if multiple windows match the partial title, whether changes are immediate or animated, or what happens on failure. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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 extremely concise - a single 6-word phrase that communicates the core functionality without any waste. It's front-loaded with the essential action and target, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

For a mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address critical context like error conditions, coordinate reference frames, what 'partial' matching entails, or what happens when only some parameters are provided. The agent would need to guess about important operational details.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain coordinate systems, units, or how partial title matching works. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('Resize and/or move') and the target ('a window by title'), providing specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like desktop_window_focus or desktop_window_list, which also operate on windows by 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention whether this should be used instead of desktop_window_focus for positioning, or how it relates to other window manipulation tools. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.

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