filmora_activate

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

The description adds a genuine scope constraint beyond the annotations ('does not maximize or resize'), which tells the agent what state will not change. However, it says nothing about what happens if no window is selected, whether focus changes are reversible, or why the annotations mark this destructiveHint=true for an apparently non-destructive foreground action, leaving a behavioral 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the boundary condition. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema window action, the description is nearly sufficient: action, target, and behavioral boundary are all present. The remaining gap is failure behavior (no selected window / window not open) and the unexplained destructive annotation.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is trivially complete, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to carry. Baseline 4 applies for a 0-param tool.

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?

States a specific verb pair (restore/foreground) and a precise resource (the selected Filmora window), which cleanly separates it from siblings like filmora_select_window, filmora_windows, and filmora_launch. The scope clause 'Does not maximize or resize it' further disambiguates it from window-manipulation tools.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'the selected Filmora window' presupposes that a window was chosen first, implying a call to filmora_select_window. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not, and no named alternatives.

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