mouse_move

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does valuable work by disclosing that pointer acceleration applies and that glide_ms spreads the move over time, but it never states what happens at screen edges (clamping vs. wrapping), whether the call blocks until the move completes, or what error behavior looks like for out-of-range offsets.

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?

Three tight sentences: the core operation first, the alternative second, the timing modifier last. Every sentence carries information the schema does not, and none is padded.

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 3-parameter, zero-annotation, no-output-schema mutation of system state, this is serviceable but thin. It covers purpose, routing, and one timing behavior, yet leaves unit semantics and edge-of-screen/error behavior unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description has to compensate, and it does the most important part: it defines dx/dy as relative offsets rather than absolute coordinates, and conveys that glide_ms controls duration. It never states the unit of dx/dy (pixels vs. device units) or that glide_ms is in milliseconds, which leaves a meaningful ambiguity.

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?

Specific verb (move) plus resource (the pointer) with the crucial qualifier that the motion is relative by (dx, dy). It explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling mouse_move_to, so an agent can separate the two tools without opening either 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?

'prefer mouse_move_to for targeting' gives an explicit alternative and the condition that favors it, which is real routing guidance. What's missing is a corollary rule for when relative moves are the right choice (e.g., when the current pointer position is unknown or a target is offscreen save for a nudge).

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