user_mouse_input

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. While it states that events are injected, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., triggering UI handlers), whether coordinates are relative to the viewport, or whether the action is synchronous or asynchronous. For a tool that simulates user input, more behavioral context is expected.

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?

A single, well-formed sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes the key scoping detail ('active Studio viewport'). No unnecessary words or redundant information.

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 description together with the schema covers the essential mechanics of the tool, but because there are no annotations and no output schema, the description alone leaves gaps such as coordinate interpretation, click/move behavior nuances, and any prerequisites for viewport interaction. 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented. The description adds context about the 'active Studio viewport' but does not add additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is 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 uses a specific verb ('injects') and a clear resource ('virtual mouse move and click events into the active Studio viewport'), making the tool's function immediately understandable. This also distinguishes it naturally from sibling input tools like user_keyboard_input.

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 implies the tool is for simulating mouse interaction in the active viewport, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it. It lacks explicit scenarios or prerequisite information such as needing an active Studio session or viewport focus.

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