move_window

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the window is also focused after moving, what happens when both pixels and workspace are specified, how 'special:name' works, or any failure modes. The description is silent on side effects and edge cases, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 a single concise sentence with no redundancy. The core action and object are front-loaded ('Move active/selected window'), making it immediately scannable. Every word contributes to stating the tool's basic function.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not mention return values. More critically, it leaves 'target' and 'special:name' unexplained, and does not cover parameter combinations. For a tool with four optional parameters, this level of incompleteness is inadequate for reliable agent invocation.

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 clarify parameter meanings. It mentions 'pixels' (likely x,y) and 'workspace', but does not explain the 'target' parameter at all. It also does not clarify the format of 'special:name' or how parameters interact. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the bare parameter names.

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 ('Move') with a clear resource ('active/selected window') and specifies the action (to pixels and/or workspace). It distinguishes from siblings like focus_window, but could better differentiate from switch_workspace, which also involves workspaces. Still, the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that switch_workspace should be used for switching the active workspace, nor does it state any prerequisites or conditions. The phrase 'active/selected window' implies context, but fails to provide actionable direction.

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