deny_window_from_group

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

The description discloses the tool's uncertain implementation status, which is valuable for transparency. However, with no annotations, it fails to describe other behavioral traits such as whether the denial is persistent, reversible, or what happens if the window is already in a group.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and then provides a necessary caveat. It is fairly concise, though the caveat lengthens it slightly.

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 optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core action but omits details on errors, reversibility, and state persistence. The uncertainty note addresses a key gap but more context would be beneficial.

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 coverage is 100% and the description does not add meaning beyond the schema's parameter documentation. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool prevents a window from being added to a group or becoming a group itself, distinguishing it from group-manipulation siblings like toggle_group and group_cycle. The caveat about best-effort path slightly reduces clarity but does not obscure the purpose.

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. With sibling tools like toggle_group, group_cycle, and toggle_group_lock, the agent has no criteria to decide when deny_window_from_group is appropriate.

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