manage_window

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds only the vague qualifiers 'Targeted, verified' and says nothing about the confirmation_token/request_confirmation flow that high-risk actions apparently require, nor what state changes are irreversible.

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 dense sentence, front-loaded with the tool's domain and scope, with no filler sentences. It is efficient, though the enumerated action list is largely redundant with the enum in the schema.

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 14-parameter, destructive, 15-action tool with no output schema and low schema description coverage, this one-liner is far too sparse. It leaves the agent without guidance on parameter combinations, the confirmation workflow, or the effect of each action.

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 only 21%, so the description should compensate and does not. The action list merely restates the action enum verbatim, and the other 13 parameters (x, y, width, height, target, address, follow, workspace, restore_workspace, minimized_workspace, etc.) receive no semantic explanation anywhere.

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+resource (window management) and enumerates the exact action set, so an agent immediately knows this operates on windows rather than workspaces or apps. It lacks explicit differentiation from siblings like manage_workspace or list_windows, but the action list implicitly makes the scope clear.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no conditions that select this tool over list_windows, wait_for_window, or manage_workspace, and no mention of prerequisites. The 'Targeted, verified' framing hints at intent but names no alternatives or exclusions.

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