Select Studio window

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

Annotations already state idempotent, non-destructive, and non-read-only behavior. The description adds important non-obvious context beyond that: selecting invalidates the old token and input should follow an observe step.

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?

Two short sentences are front-loaded with the core action and then the main caveat. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

The description covers token invalidation and the observe-before-input workflow, but it leaves window_id acquisition and return/new-token behavior unaddressed. With no output schema and no parameter descriptions, those are material gaps.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter, window_id, and the description does not explain its format, source, or whether it comes from studio_list_windows. The phrase 'verified Studio window/dialog' hints at the target but does not document the parameter.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Select a verified Studio window/dialog.' That is enough to distinguish selection from siblings like studio_list_windows or studio_launch, though it does not explicitly name the alternative tool.

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 phrase 'observe before input' supplies a sequencing prerequisite, but the description does not say when to use this instead of studio_list_windows or studio_launch. Usage context is implied rather than fully specified.

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