set_window_rect

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 correctly notes the auto-restore behavior (key for success) and the null-unchanged semantics. However, it omits potential side effects, required permissions, platform dependencies, and error conditions for out-of-range values (only schema min/max exist). This is adequate but incomplete for a mutation tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by key behavioral and parameter guidance. No unnecessary words. Highly efficient.

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?

The description covers the primary behavior (move/resize, auto-restore, null semantics) adequately for a tool with 4 required-but-nullable parameters and no output schema. However, it could mention what happens on success (return value?), error scenarios (e.g., invalid window state), and whether coordinate bounds are enforced beyond schema validation. Minor gaps for a mutating tool.

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%, and each parameter's description already states 'New ... or null to leave unchanged.' The description repeats this guidance but adds no additional nuance, like units (pixels?), coordinate system origin, or constraints. Since schema does the heavy lifting, a 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function: 'Move and/or resize the current session's root window.' It uses a specific verb (move/resize) and resource (root window). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like maximize_window, minimize_window, and get_window_rect.

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 context for when to use the tool: it mentions that move/resize fails when the window is maximized or minimized and that it first restores to normal state. It also explains how to leave dimensions unchanged via null. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like maximize_window or manual screen coordinate queries.

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