Move a window on screen

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description rightly carries the burden: it discloses that this mutates the live window's position (and size if width/height are supplied) via window.moveTo/resizeTo, which tells the agent the effect is immediate and observable on the OS desktop. The negative-coordinate caveat is behavioral context not present in annotations. It omits failure behavior (e.g., what happens if the OS rejects the move or the resize is clamped).

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and the coordinate semantics, followed by the prerequisite and the caveat. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 simple 4-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers units, optional resize, prerequisite tool, and a real edge case. The one residual gap is that no window identifier is accepted, so it relies on an implicit "current/active window" — worth stating explicitly given siblings like browser_list_windows and browser_new_window exist.

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 coverage is 100% but the field descriptions are minimal ("Screen x", "Optional new width"), so the baseline is 3. The description earns the bump by fixing the unit (screen pixels, not CSS/viewport pixels) and explicitly permitting negative values on multi-monitor layouts, which the schema's bare minimum bound does not convey.

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?

A specific verb + resource (move the window to a screen coordinate) with the underlying API (window.moveTo) named, plus the optional resize capability. It is unambiguous about what it changes, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling browser_set_window_size, which the optional width/height arguments partially overlap.

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?

"Use browser_get_window_geometry first if you need the current values" names a concrete sibling and the condition under which to call it. The multi-monitor negative-coordinate warning is a useful precondition. It stops short of saying when to prefer browser_set_window_size or browser_set_window_state instead, so it is strong but not complete routing guidance.

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