filmora_select_window

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates state, yet the description adds no behavioral context: nothing about focus/foreground behavior, whether it blocks, whether it changes application state, or whether it is reversible. It only restates the input source, so it falls short even against the lowered bar set by annotations.

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 core action and the prerequisite source. No filler; slightly terse rather than bloated, though the second sentence's purpose could be clearer.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the essential prerequisite (handle origin) and the modal-dialog case are covered. But given the destructive annotation, an agent still lacks information on side effects and expected result state, leaving a meaningful gap.

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% for the single required integer hwnd, so the description must compensate. It partially does by naming the provider tool (filmora_windows) that yields the handle, but it never explains the handle's type, lifetime, or validity constraints (e.g., stale-handle behavior).

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 ("Select") and the resource (a window handle), and it explicitly ties the input to the sibling tool filmora_windows, which distinguishes it from neighbors like filmora_click or filmora_windows itself. The jargon "handle" is not defined, but the origin is.

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?

It implies the usage chain (get the handle from filmora_windows, then select it) and adds the case of modal dialogs, which is useful. However, it gives no explicit when-not guidance, no ordering constraints relative to filmora_click/filmora_ui_action, and no statement of what selection enables.

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