restore_window

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

The idempotentHint annotation already tells the agent that running this multiple times has the same effect. The description adds that it works via the UIA Window pattern, which is useful but not critical. It does not mention any side effects (e.g., does it fail if window is already normal?) or permission requirements. With the annotation covering the idempotency, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It clearly states the action, the condition (minimized/maximized), the result (normal state), and the mechanism. Every part earns its place.

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 simple single-parameter tool with annotations and full schema coverage, the description is complete enough. The only minor gap is not mentioning what happens if the window is already normal, but this is inferred from the idempotentHint. No output schema exists, so the return value is not explained, but that is acceptable for a simple action.

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 parameter 'elementId' is already documented in the input schema. The description does not add any extra meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is correct.

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 ('restore') plus a clear resource ('a minimized or maximized window') and specifies the outcome ('to its normal state'). It also references the underlying mechanism ('via the UIA Window pattern'), which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like minimize_window or maximize_window.

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 that this tool is used when a window is minimized or maximized and you want to return it to normal state. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it, nor does it mention alternatives or prerequisites (such as needing a valid elementId from find_element or get_window_element).

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