move_window

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the position is display-aware, with clamping via display_index, and returns JSON with final metadata or an error. However, it does not detail behavior for invalid coordinates, missing windows, or system requirements.

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 concise with a front-loaded summary line, structured Args and Returns sections, and no unnecessary words.

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?

Given 6 parameters (2 required) and an output schema mentioned, the description covers all parameters and return format. It could elaborate on 'display-aware clamping' and absolute vs relative movement, but it is largely complete.

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%, and the description adds value by explaining each parameter's purpose (e.g., 'target top-left x coordinate', 'Optional app name, bundle id, or process name'). This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 clearly states it moves a macOS window to a display-aware top-left position, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like focus_window, resize_window, tile_windows, etc.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like resize_window, tile_windows, or focus_window. While optional identifiers are listed, there is no discussion of prerequisites or when to prefer one identifier over another.

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