onda_window_mount_workspace

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states idempotency, the atomic transfer via the unmount-request flow, the return object, and how `direction` affects tile splicing. This is rich, transparent detail that goes far beyond a simple action statement.

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 a single, dense paragraph that front-loads the primary action and then covers edge cases, return values, and parameter behavior. There is minimal redundancy and every sentence carries meaningful content, though the length could be slightly trimmed for even better scannability.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description manually discloses the return shape `{ success, workspaceId, windowId, transferred }`. It covers all significant behaviors: idempotency, transfer across windows, direction defaults, and anchor behavior. For a tool with 4 parameters and complex side effects, this is thoroughly complete.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for all four parameters, including defaults for `direction` and `anchorWorkspaceId`. The description adds valuable semantic context by explaining the real-world meaning of `direction` (mirrors Cmd+P picker) and the return fields, but it does not need to explain the already-documented parameters extensively.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Mount a workspace in a specific window.' It clearly distinguishes the action from siblings like unmount, list, and focus by focusing on the mount operation and its unique transfer flow. The mention of idempotency and atomic transfer further pinpoints the exact behavior.

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 establishes when to use the tool: whenever a workspace needs to be mounted in a window. It also covers edge cases (already present, mounted elsewhere) and explains the transfer behavior. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it falls short of a 5.

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