Promote a window to the master slot

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the core action (moving a window to the master slot) and the resulting layout, but does not mention side effects, error behavior, or prerequisites beyond 'master mode'. It doesn't state what happens if the index is invalid or if the current layout is not in master mode, which is a notable gap for a layout-modifying tool.

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 condition ('In master mode') and efficiently conveys the purpose and behavior. Every word earns its place; there is no redundant or vague text.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides sufficient information to call it correctly: it states the mode, the effect, and the parameter meaning. It relies on layout_order for ordering details, which is a reasonable dependency. It could mention error conditions, but that is not critical for a simple layout operation.

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. It explains that 'index' refers to the Nth window and points to layout_order for ordering, adding meaning beyond the bare integer field. It does not explicitly state 1-based indexing, but the schema's minimum of 1 implies it. This is a solid compensation for the lack of schema documentation.

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'), resource ('the Nth window'), and the specific action ('into the full-height left column') with a clear effect on the layout. It references layout_order for window ordering, and implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like layout_swap_windows (which swaps) and layout_grid (which sets grid layout). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 specifies the context ('In master mode') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like layout_swap_windows or layout_grid. It neither mentions when not to use it nor names alternative tools. The guidance is implied rather than explicit, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate use case.

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