Send window to workspace

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (moving a window, optionally following focus) but does not elaborate on side effects, possible failures, or the precise effect of 'follow' (e.g., whether focus switches to the moved window). It is minimally adequate but lacks depth for a mutation 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?

The description is two sentences (20 words), front-loading the core action in the first sentence and then clarifying defaults and target selection in the second. There is no redundant phrasing or filler; every word adds value.

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 move operation with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential points: the action, default target, and how to override it. It does not mention edge cases like invalid workspace values or the exact meaning of 'follow', but it provides enough for an agent to call the tool correctly in typical scenarios. Given the lack of annotations, a bit more behavioral detail would be ideal, but the current level is adequate.

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 the purpose of 'address/match' as alternatives for an explicit target, and 'optionally following focus' corresponds to the 'follow' parameter. It does not explain the 'workspace' syntax (e.g., 'special:' or 'previous') but that is partially inferred from the schema pattern. Overall, it adds meaningful context for the optional parameters, which is valuable given the lack of schema docs.

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 action ('Move a window to another workspace') with the resource and verb clearly identified. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'window_focus' by focusing on moving rather than focusing, and mentions the optional follow behavior and explicit target via address/match, which further clarifies its role.

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 usage context: it explains the default target (focused window) and how to specify an explicit target with address/match. However, it does not mention alternative tools or explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings. The guidance is sufficient for the common use case but lacks explicit exclusions.

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