imgui_move_window

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description doesn't state whether the window must already exist, what happens if the id is invalid, whether the window must be visible, whether coordinates are in screen space or ImGui local space, or if this triggers a re-layout of children. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 a single efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the verb and resource immediately. It could arguably include more context (coordinate space, error behavior), but the conciseness dimension rewards efficiency, not completeness.

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?

This is a simple mutation tool with 3 parameters and no annotations, no output schema, and no error/return explanation. The description does the minimal job of identifying the action. However, for a tool that requires an existing window id and involves coordinate semantics, more context about prerequisites, coordinate space, and failure modes would materially improve agent decision-making. Given the low annotation coverage, the description doesn't fully compensate.

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 three parameters (id, x, y). The description adds the semantic that x/y constitute a 'new position' implying coordinates, but doesn't clarify units (pixels?) or coordinate origin (top-left? local parent?). Baseline 3 applies given high schema coverage, with a small credit for the position semantics implied by 'move to a new position.'

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 "Move a window to a new position" clearly identifies the verb (move), resource (window), and result (new position). It distinguishes from siblings like imgui_resize_window (which changes size) and imgui_set_window_visibility (which changes visibility). However, it doesn't specify that coordinates are in screen pixels vs. relative offsets, and it doesn't distinguish from the related imgui_move_widget.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It doesn't mention that id must reference an existing window, whether coordinates are absolute or relative, or that this differs from imgui_scroll_window (which scrolls content) or imgui_set_window_visibility. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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