move_workspace_to_monitor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It indicates that all windows move with the workspace, which is useful, but lacks details on side effects, reversibility, or confirmation of the action (e.g., does it fail silently if the monitor doesn't exist?).

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. No redundant words.

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?

Given no output schema and two simple parameters, the description minimally covers the operation. However, it omits any mention of return values, error cases, or success confirmation, which would aid an agent in verifying the action.

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 only 50% (only 'monitor' has a description). The description does not add parameter details beyond the schema, leaving 'workspace' unexplained. For a tool with low schema coverage, the description should compensate but fails to provide format or constraints for either parameter.

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 action (move), the resource (an entire workspace and all its windows), and the target (a different monitor). It distinguishes from sibling tools like move_window_to_workspace, which moves a single window.

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 or when not to use it. No prerequisites, restrictions, or alternative suggestions are mentioned.

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