niri_move_window_to_workspace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds some context by specifying 'currently focused' and that the workspace can be referenced by index or name, but it does not disclose side effects such as whether the view changes to the target workspace, what happens if the workspace does not exist, or whether the move is reversible. This is a mutation tool with minimal behavioral disclosure.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It directly states the action, subject, and target, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool, the core function is described, but there are gaps: no mention of preconditions (e.g., a focused window must exist), error behavior, or side effects. An output schema exists, so return values are likely covered, but the lack of behavioral context for a mutation makes it only adequately 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 only defines workspace_ref as a string with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds meaning by stating the reference can be by index or name, which helps the agent understand the parameter's format. However, it does not specify how to distinguish index from name or whether the string should be numeric, leaving some ambiguity.

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 (currently focused window/column), and the destination (specified workspace by index or name). This distinguishes it from siblings like niri_focus_workspace (focuses workspace) and niri_move_window_direction (moves in a direction), as it uniquely targets a workspace by reference.

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 context: it operates on the currently focused window/column, so the agent must know that a focused window exists. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives beyond what sibling names imply.

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