Toggle i3 Window State

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

Annotations are all false and provide minimal information, but the description compensates by stating the operation is reversible and explaining the behavior of enable and fullscreen_scope. It does not mention any side effects, but given the tool's nature, this is sufficient.

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 very concise—three sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and quickly covers usage details and alternatives.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 params, all documented in schema, and an output schema exists), the description provides complete guidance on how to use each parameter and when to use an alternative tool. No gaps.

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% (baseline 3), and the description adds value by clarifying the enable parameter's toggle vs force behavior and the fullscreen_scope meaning (per-output vs across-all). This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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's action: toggle boolean window states (floating, fullscreen, sticky) on the focused window. It distinguishes itself from sibling tool set_layout, which handles layout/border changes.

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?

Explicitly provides when to use (for boolean window states) and when not to (for layout/border, use set_layout). Also explains the toggle behavior and parameter usage (omit enable to toggle, set true/false to force).

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