Set a Mac window's dimensions by providing its window ID and target width and height in pixels.
Set the size of a window.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| width | Yes | New width in pixels | |
| height | Yes | New height in pixels | |
| window_id | Yes | Window identifier |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
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. 'Set the size of a window' is minimal and does not disclose whether the operation is reversible, what happens if the window is invalid, whether the window moves or resizes in place, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 short sentence with no wasted words, which is efficient. However, it is under-specified and does not provide enough context for a mutation tool. It is concise but not substantively sufficient, so it earns a middle score.
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 that there are no annotations and the tool is a mutation, the description is incomplete. It does not mention behavior like whether the window must be active, how errors are handled, or what the output schema contains (though an output schema exists, the description still lacks operational context). For a simple tool this might be acceptable, but the absence of any behavioral notes makes it inadequate for an agent to fully anticipate side effects.
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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter, so the schema already documents the three parameters. The description adds no additional nuance beyond what the schema provides, such as constraints or relationships. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the semantic load.
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 states a clear verb ('Set') and resource ('size of a window'), which is unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like computer_set_window_position, though the resource difference is implicit. The purpose is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that this only changes dimensions and not position, nor does it indicate any prerequisites such as the window needing to exist or be active. The description gives no context for selection among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
This server cannot be deployed