kde_window_activate

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, yet the description adds genuinely new behavior: activating a window in the 'user-desktop' session changes the real user's focus, which is a side effect not derivable from the annotations. It does not cover failure behavior when the window_id is stale or whether activation raises/restores a minimized window, so it is not complete.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the key warning; nothing is redundant. It is arguably too terse rather than bloated, but no sentence wastes space.

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?

With no output schema and only a destructiveHint=false annotation, the description carries most of the burden for a state-changing tool. It discloses the focus side effect but omits what the call returns, what happens on a missing window, and how session scope interacts with the target window.

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 50%, and the covered half is the 'session' parameter, which is already documented thoroughly in the schema including the 'user-desktop' opt-in semantics. The description adds nothing about window_id (where to obtain it, format, or whether it must belong to the given session), leaving the undocumented parameter unexplained in both places.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Activate a selected window'), which is distinguishable from the read-only siblings like kde_window_list and kde_window_inspect. It stops short of naming alternatives or the target window's relationship to a session, but the core action is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the call to make when it wants a window brought to the foreground, and the second sentence signals a risk for the 'user-desktop' case. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus kde_window_find or kde_window_inspect, nor any prerequisite such as obtaining window_id from a discovery call first.

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