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

The description adds crucial context regarding the tool's nature as a low-level movement operation, informing the agent of its functional constraints beyond the annotations. While the annotations provide safety profiles (non-destructive), the description provides operational context that is highly valuable.

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 definition is perfectly balanced; the first sentence states the function, and the second provides the critical usage warning. Both sentences are concise and add maximum value to the tool's utility.

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 definition is very complete for a low-level system interaction tool, covering its function, its limitations, and its relationship to higher-level UI tools. It provides all necessary context for an agent to decide if this tool is appropriate.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 100%, the input schema fully defines the semantics of x, y, device, and backend. The description provides no additional semantic information regarding the parameters, making the baseline score 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 defines the action (move desktop mouse pointer) and the precise result (to a requested coordinate). It successfully differentiates this function from clicking or other pointer interaction tools by specifying 'without clicking'.

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 explicit guidance on usage hierarchy: 'Prefer semantic UI tools for actions.' It also clearly defines the functional limitations of the tool, stating that 'movement alone does not select or submit anything,' which is vital context for preventing agent misuse.

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