Move Window

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely drops it: nothing about coordinate origin or units, whether moves are absolute or relative to current position, what happens when the title substring matches multiple windows, or what error/return occurs when no window matches. Only the bare operation is disclosed.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is terse rather than padded, though the terseness comes at the cost of the missing detail noted elsewhere.

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, but with 6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, a geometry-mutating tool needs more than one clause. The core identification mechanism is covered while the required geometry inputs and ambiguity behavior are not.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It explains only that a window can be identified by id or title substring (window_id/title), but says nothing about the four required geometry parameters x, y, width, height, nor about precedence when both window_id and title are given.

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 pair (move/resize) and resource (a window), and names the two addressing modes (id or title substring). It doesn't distinguish itself from geometry-changing siblings such as maximize_window, fullscreen_window, or restore_window, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. An agent gets no signal about whether to reach for this versus maximize_window/fullscreen_window/restore_window when it wants to change a window's geometry.

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