Manage a window

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: exactly one close message is sent, the result is read back, and a 'save?' prompt is reported but never answered. That last point is important context for a destructive action, since the agent learns it cannot resolve a blocking dialog. It does not say what happens to unsaved changes if the prompt is ignored.

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?

A single front-loaded clause with a parenthetical qualifier; the action verb comes first and nothing is padded. The 'close:' label implies a multi-action structure that isn't delivered, which is a minor structural inefficiency.

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 destructive, open-world operation with no output schema, the description covers the interaction sequence and the dialog behavior, which is the most important part. It omits what a matching window returns, what happens when several windows match the title fragment, and whether closing is reversible or discards state.

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%; the 'window' parameter is well documented in the schema (id, title fragment, or app name, defaulting to the last look), and the description covers the 'action' enum value by naming 'close'. However, the description adds no matching or resolution semantics of its own, so it neither compensates for nor improves on the schema.

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 does state a specific verb and resource ('close the window'), but the tool is named 'window' and titled 'Manage a window', implying a broader surface than the single documented action. The 'close:' prefix suggests a list of actions that is never expanded, so an agent cannot tell from the description whether other actions exist or how this differs from siblings like 'windows' or 'look'.

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: if you want to close a window, use this. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as 'act' or 'launch' for other window interactions. The save-prompt note hints at a decision point but doesn't frame it as a usage rule.

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