imgui_set_anchor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explains that the anchor is relative to the viewport, which is a meaningful non-mutating positioning operation, but doesn't disclose whether this overrides existing positions, interacts with window layers, or requires a drawn window. The description is adequate but not rich on side effects.

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?

A single concise sentence with useful examples embedded (top_left, center, bottom_right). It's front-loaded with the verb-set purpose and wastes no words. Could arguably be slightly more descriptive about the offset semantics, but the schema already covers this, so the brevity is appropriate.

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 relatively simple 4-parameter positioning tool with 100% schema coverage and no nested objects, the description is mostly complete. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it provides no guidance on interaction with window visibility, layering, or overriding existing positions, which leaves some ambiguity for the agent in more complex scenarios.

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 each parameter (window, anchor, offset_x, offset_y). The description does not add detail beyond what the schema provides about parameter semantics. The phrase 'relative to the viewport' adds some context about the anchor enum's meaning, meeting the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 'Set a window's anchor position relative to the viewport' uses a specific verb (set) and clearly identifies the resource (window position) and the anchoring concept relative to the viewport with concrete examples. It distinguishes from the sibling imgui_set_widget_anchor and imgui_move_window by focusing on anchor positioning rather than pixel movement, though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.

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 description implies usage context (setting window anchor relative to viewport) but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. It doesn't name alternative tools like imgui_move_window or imgui_set_widget_anchor, so an agent must infer which tool is appropriate based solely on the 'anchor' terminology.

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