window_move

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it states what the tool does (move window), it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, whether the move is immediate or animated, what coordinate system is used (screen vs. display), or error conditions. The description provides basic operation but lacks behavioral depth.

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 appropriately sized with clear front-loading of the main purpose followed by parameter details. The Args section is structured but could be more integrated. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the formatting could be slightly more polished.

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 a mutation tool with no annotations, 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, but with an output schema present, the description is moderately complete. It explains the core operation and parameters adequately but lacks behavioral context about side effects, error handling, or coordinate system details that would be important for safe use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all three parameters: x and y as pixel coordinates with reference points (from left/top), and window_id with its optional behavior (omit for current window). This adds meaningful semantic context beyond the bare schema types, though it doesn't specify coordinate range limits or window_id format.

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 specific action ('Move an iTerm2 window') and the target ('to a specific screen position'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like window_resize, window_focus, or window_close. It uses precise verb+resource language that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 implies usage context through the parameter documentation (window_id defaults to current window), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like window_arrange_* tools or window_resize. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives are provided.

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