computer_set_window_position

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 does not state whether the window is moved instantly, whether coordinates are relative to the screen or workspace, whether the window is activated, or what happens if the window_id is invalid. For a mutating tool this is a meaningful gap.

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 efficient sentence that states the action clearly and front-loads the purpose. There is no filler or unnecessary repetition, and it earns its place as a concise definition.

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?

This is a simple three-parameter tool with an output schema, so extensive documentation is not required. However, the description omits important operational details such as the coordinate system/origin and the effect on window activation, which an agent may need to call it correctly in a GUI automation context.

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 schema has 100% description coverage, so all three parameters are documented, but the descriptions are thin ('New X position', 'New Y position', 'Window identifier'). The tool description adds little beyond implying that x and y define the new position, which matches the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 and resource ('Set the position of a window') that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_window_size and get_window_position. It is not a tautology and conveys the core action, though it does not explicitly mention coordinates or screen placement.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of related tools such as get_window_position, set_window_size, or activate_window. The intended usage is only implied by the name and description, with no exclusions or alternatives provided.

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