Toggle floating

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly states the toggle action and default/target behavior. However, it does not disclose edge cases (e.g., behavior when window already in requested state, error handling for invalid address/match, or any side effects). This is minimal but acceptable for a simple toggle operation.

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?

One concise sentence that front-loads the core action, then states the default and the parameter option. No filler, and every clause contributes to usability.

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 two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential operation and target selection. However, given the large sibling set of window manipulation tools, it lacks differentiation guidance, and parameter semantics are underspecified. It is adequate but not complete for an agent to confidently choose this tool over similar ones.

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 explain the parameters. It mentions 'address/match' as alternatives but does not define what each means or their format (e.g., regex vs. exact ID). This leaves ambiguity for the agent on which to use and how to construct it. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema's bare 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 states a specific verb ('Toggle') and resource ('a window between floating and tiling'), which is clear and unambiguous. It also clarifies the default target (focused window) and the parameter alternative, distinguishing it from other window-related tools in the sibling list that focus on resizing, fullscreen, or closing.

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 only explains the default vs. explicit target selection, which is parameter usage, not tool selection. Among many window manipulation siblings (e.g., window_fullscreen, window_snap), there is no mention of conditions or exclusions.

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