Set Omarchy bar position (verified)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add a key behavior: it verifies shell.json afterwards, which is beyond the schema. However, it omits side effects, reversibility, permission requirements, and what happens if verification fails, leaving gaps in the safety profile.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and includes the verification detail. There is no fluff or redundant phrasing; every word serves a purpose.

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 tool with one enum parameter and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the core action and verification but lacks context on when to use it, potential failure modes, and behavioral expectations beyond verification, leaving an agent without full guidance.

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 must compensate for parameter semantics. It only loosely references 'exact screen edge,' which mirrors the enum values but adds no new meaning or usage details. The agent gains little beyond the schema's own enum definition.

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 verb 'Move' and the resource 'bar', with a specific action of moving to an exact screen edge. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like bar_visibility_set or bar_transparency_set, but the purpose is unambiguous. The verification step adds specificity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions. An agent would have no indication of when to choose this over bar_visibility_set or bar_widget_move.

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