activate_window

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it discloses the most important behavior: focus is verified and failure produces an error rather than a false success. It does not describe effects on window stacking or minimized windows, but the core activation guarantee is explicit.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the main action and the error guarantee are front-loaded. Every clause adds information.

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 activation tool with fully documented parameters, the description plus schema gives enough to call it correctly. It lacks an explicit success return contract, and there is no output schema, but the error-on-failed-focus statement covers the most important outcome.

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%, so the description does not need to restate parameters. It adds no parameter-level detail, but every parameter is already well documented in the input schema, meeting the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('focus and raise a window') and adds a verifiable success criterion ('confirm focus actually landed'), which distinguishes it from inspection tools like list_windows or window_at. It is immediately clear what the tool does.

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 does not state when to choose this tool over siblings such as window_manage or list_windows, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The only hint that it belongs before input actions is in the target parameter schema, not in the tool description.

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