set_window_rect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the mutation and the target scope ('current window'), but it does not mention coordinate units, origin, constraints on width/height, or failure behavior. This is acceptable but minimal.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the action and target. Every word contributes meaning and there is no repetition or 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?

For a simple mutator with four self-explanatory integer parameters and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. The main gap is the lack of explicit coordinate-system or unit context, but the operation is simple enough that an agent can likely call it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It groups x/y as position and width/height as size, which adds partial meaning beyond the bare parameter names, but it leaves units and coordinate semantics implicit.

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 names a specific verb ('Set'), a specific resource ('the current window'), and the two things being changed ('position and size'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like get_window_rect, maximize, and minimize.

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 clearly implies the tool is used to reposition/resize the active window, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over maximize, minimize, or get_window_rect. The usage context is inferable, not spelled out.

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