window_manage

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

The description discloses a genuinely useful behavioral trait: the result reports the window's post-operation state, not merely that the call was sent. It also explains that a close that leaves the window standing names the likely reason, such as an unsaved-changes dialog. With no annotations provided, this is meaningful transparency, though it stops short of covering side effects, reversibility, or permissions.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the action list, then result semantics, then the close-failure behavior. The last sentence is grammatically awkward and 'where these are ordinary calls' is slightly extraneous, but overall every sentence contributes useful information without padding.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description covers purpose and one error mode but lacks parameter semantics, when-to-use guidance, and broader behavioral outcomes. An agent would likely need additional information to invoke it reliably, especially for workspace and geometry parameters.

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 only 38%, so the description must compensate. It loosely connects actions to parameters (pin to 'above', workspace to 'index', geometry to x/y/width/height), but it does not clarify coordinate origin, units, workspace indexing, or valid ranges. Several parameters remain effectively undocumented, so the description is too thin to bridge the schema gap.

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 resource (windows) and a clear set of verbs: move, resize, close, minimize, maximize, re-workspace, pin. It distinguishes itself from read-only window tools like list_windows or window_at by emphasizing mutation/manipulation through the compositor. Minor ambiguity from 're-workspace' and typos in the enum values keep it from a 5.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as activate_window, list_windows, or window_at. The phrase 'through the compositor, where these are ordinary calls' hints at context but does not define selection criteria or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the operation list.

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