window_action

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds context: 'close is destructive - it sends the window a close request and the app may prompt to save.' This goes beyond annotations by explaining the actual behavior of close. 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?

The description is concise at three sentences plus a block of parameter details. It front-loads the core action list. Every sentence adds value, though the parameter list could be integrated more cleanly.

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 the tool's complexity (multiple actions, multiple identification methods, platform-specific parameters), the description covers the main aspects: actions, identification, destructive warning, and output format. It is reasonably complete for effective use.

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 the description bears the full burden. It clarifies that handle and title are alternative identifiers, mentions display is Linux-only, and explains confirm_focus_disruption requires explicit user consent. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's basic property names.

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 the tool's purpose: to focus, minimize, maximize, restore, or close a window. It lists all actions and specifies window identification via handle or title. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like move_window or resize_window.

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?

The description provides basic usage guidance (identify window by handle or title) and warns about close being destructive. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like move_window or resize_window, nor does it mention prerequisites beyond window identification.

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