Control desktop window

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the mutation/destruction risk is known. The description adds the useful context that the handle originates from list_windows, but otherwise it largely restates the action enum without explaining side effects such as focus stealing or irreversible close. This is acceptable but not rich behavioral disclosure.

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 entire description is a single sentence that front-loads the action verbs and immediately names the handle source. There is no redundancy or filler; every phrase contributes to selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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 two-parameter tool with an enum constraint, annotations, and no output schema, the description contains enough information to invoke it correctly: the handle provenance and the allowed actions. It could mention edge cases like close being irreversible, but the destructiveHint annotation already covers the main safety concern.

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%, but the schema itself provides an enum for action and an integer type with minimum for handle. The description adds one meaningful semantic beyond the schema: the handle is specifically the one returned by list_windows. However, it does not elaborate on the effects or prerequisites of each action, so it only partially compensates for the missing parameter 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 names a specific verb set ('Focus, minimize, maximize, restore, or close') and a clear resource ('a desktop window'), then ties the handle to list_windows, which distinguishes it from window enumeration and other sibling tools. This is a specific, actionable definition rather than a generic restatement of the title.

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 phrase 'by the handle returned from list_windows' clearly implies the prerequisite workflow: first list windows, then control one by its handle. It does not explicitly list when not to use the tool, but no sibling tool appears to overlap with desktop-window manipulation, so the context is sufficient.

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