move

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that relative mode rotates the in-game camera, which is meaningful state-changing context, but it omits whether motion is instant or animated, what coordinate space absolute x/y uses, and any dependency on prior focus.

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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded and the parameter caveat immediately after. No filler, though the brevity leaves gaps that are penalized in other dimensions rather than being padding.

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?

For a 4-parameter input tool with no output schema and sparse schema descriptions, the description covers the trickiest case (relative movement for camera control) but should also specify the absolute coordinate frame and default behavior for `relative`. It is minimally sufficient but not complete.

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 coverage is only 25% (only id documented), so the description must compensate. It does clarify the crucial x/y semantics in relative mode, but leaves absolute-mode coordinates undefined and does not state the default for `relative` or how id interacts with x/y when both are supplied.

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+resource ("移动鼠标" / move the mouse), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from siblings like click, drag, and scroll. It does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast with, but the purpose is immediately clear.

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?

It supplies one useful conditional use case: relative=true is for turning the game camera. However, it gives no guidance on when to move the cursor versus using click/drag directly, nor any prerequisites such as needing a target window in focus first.

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