mouse_move

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds the absolute coordinate behavior and return value. However, it omits the focus disruption risk that moving the cursor can cause, even though the schema parameter confirm_focus_disruption implies this requirement.

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 concise and well-structured with clear sections for purpose, args, and returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 covers the core function and return format but lacks usage guidance relative to sibling tools and does not mention the focus disruption caveat. It is adequate for a simple tool but incomplete for fully informed invocation.

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 description mentions x, y, and optional duration, but fails to cover the 'instant' and 'confirm_focus_disruption' parameters. Since schema description coverage is 0% per the signal, the description must compensate and does so only partially.

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 states the tool moves the mouse cursor to an absolute screen coordinate, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from related tools like mouse_click, mouse_drag, and mouse_scroll.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any context for selection. It merely states what the tool does without mentioning scenarios or exclusions.

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