window_arrange_save

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool saves arrangements but doesn't explain what 'saving' entails (e.g., persistence format, storage location, whether it overwrites existing arrangements with the same name). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and effects.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated in the first sentence and parameter details following in a clear 'Args:' section. Every sentence earns its place, and there's no redundant or verbose language, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (saving arrangements), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and parameter but lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., how saves are stored) and doesn't leverage the output schema to explain return values. It's complete enough for basic use but has clear gaps for informed tool selection.

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?

The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'name' by specifying it's 'Name for the saved arrangement,' which clarifies its purpose beyond the schema's basic 'Name' title. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this compensates well, though it doesn't detail constraints like length or allowed characters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a single parameter with good semantic clarification.

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 clearly states the action ('Save') and resource ('current window arrangement'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'window_arrange_list' and 'window_arrange_restore' by focusing on saving rather than listing or restoring arrangements. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'window_close', 'window_move'), so it's not a perfect 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing window arrangement to save), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'window_arrange_restore' for loading saved arrangements. Usage is implied from the name and description but not explicitly stated.

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