niri_move_window_direction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the core mutation (moving the window) but does not explain semantics of directions like 'first' and 'last', what happens if no window is focused, or edge cases such as moving at screen edges. This leaves significant ambiguity for a compositor operation.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that get straight to the point. The first sentence states the action and target; the second lists allowed values. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 low complexity (one parameter), the description is close to sufficient, but ambiguity around 'first' and 'last' directions and missing behavior for unfocused windows make it incomplete. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the tool's edge cases remain undocumented.

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 provides no description or enum for the 'direction' parameter (0% coverage). The description lists valid values ('left', 'right', 'up', 'down', 'first', 'last'), which is useful, but it does not explain what each direction does, especially 'first' and 'last'. This partially compensates for the schema gap but leaves semantics unclear.

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 a specific action ('Move') and resource ('focused window or column') with a direction parameter. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like niri_move_window_to_workspace, which moves to a workspace rather than a direction, and niri_focus_window, which changes focus rather than position.

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 implies usage when you want to move the focused window or column directionally, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites. No mention of alternatives like niri_perform_action is given.

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