create_headless_desktops

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

Discloses idempotent behavior ('Existing names are reopened safely'), which is valuable beyond annotations. Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true — the description adds the 'reopened safely' semantic, reinforcing what actually happens on name collision. No contradictions.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Second sentence is clear usage guidance; third is brief. Concise, but no trailing examples or structural formatting beyond a plain paragraph. No waste, but minimal structure.

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?

Has output schema, annotations, and idempotent hint. Description covers the main multi-agent scenario and naming guidance. For a moderately complex tool (3 params, array type), the description plus annotations are reasonably complete for an agent to use it correctly.

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%, so description carries full burden. The description explains the prefix/names relationship ('Use a project/agent-specific prefix or explicit names') and mentions generated naming, but doesn't elaborate on the count/names/prefix interplay in detail. It adds some meaning but leaves edge cases unexplored; schema has decent descriptions though coverage signal says 0%.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'create several independent off-screen desktops.' Distinguishes from sibling 'create_headless_desktop' (singular) by emphasizing 'several' and 'one request.' Doesn't explicitly name the sibling alternative, but the plural/singular difference is evident.

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?

Gives clear context: use prefix/names when several agents share a Windows session. Implies the when-to-use scenario for naming conventions. Doesn't explicitly contrast with create_headless_desktop (single) but the 'one request' for multiple distinguishes it.

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