Apply window layout

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is largely covered. The description adds genuinely non-derivable behavior: partial application (omitted sizes stay as-is), no undo step, no project mutation, and session-only lifetime, which is exactly the kind of scope detail annotations cannot express.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and purpose, then requirement, then behavioral caveats. Every clause carries information (requirement, partial update, return-shape reference, no undo, session scope) with no filler.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description still points at rillsoft_window_layout_get for shape. Requirements, reversibility, and lifetime are all covered; only edge behavior (invalid values, whether a project must be open) is unaddressed.

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 description coverage is 100% and each field is documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the partial-update semantic — omitted values are left unchanged — which complements the schema's anyOf at-least-one constraint rather than merely restating it.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Applies the window state") and adds the motivating purpose, reproducible screenshots. It also names its sibling relationship ("answers like rillsoft_window_layout_get"), so an agent can separate the setter from the getter without opening either schema.

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?

Gives a clear use case (reproducible screenshots) and a concrete prerequisite (at least one parameter required). It does not, however, say when not to use it or contrast it with adjacent layout-affecting tools such as rillsoft_view_state_apply or rillsoft_timescale_apply.

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