move_mouse

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It states only the primary action but does not disclose any side effects, such as whether the cursor movement triggers hover events, whether the coordinates are relative to a primary monitor or virtual desktop, or any error handling for out-of-bounds input. The description adds little beyond the tool name.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary wording. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. For a simple tool, this is appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 tool is a basic input action with two parameters, so a short description might be acceptable. However, missing context about coordinate interpretation (e.g., multi-monitor setups) and lack of any behavioral notes (e.g., does it move instantly or animate?) means an agent might not know edge cases. It is adequate but not fully 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?

The schema provides minimal parameter definitions (integer types with huge ranges) and no descriptions. The description mentions 'absolute screen coordinate' but does not clarify the coordinate system, units, or boundary behavior. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent without meaningful param semantic details.

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 the specific action ('Move the mouse cursor') and the resource ('absolute screen coordinate'), which clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like click_mouse or type_text. It is not a tautology because it adds the 'absolute' qualifier, making the tool's scope clear even without reading the schema.

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 instance, it does not mention that this avoids clicking or scrolling, or that it can be used for positioning before a click. The description leaves the usage context entirely implicit.

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