desktop_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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the basic action but lacks details on permissions needed (e.g., accessibility settings), side effects (e.g., cursor visibility), or constraints (e.g., screen bounds). This is a significant gap for a tool that interacts with the desktop environment.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded and easy to parse, making it highly 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?

Given the complexity of desktop interaction tools and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error handling, coordinate system, or interaction with other desktop tools, leaving gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly in context.

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%, with clear descriptions for 'x', 'y', and 'smooth' parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as coordinate system details (e.g., origin at top-left) or 'smooth' animation specifics. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Move') and target ('mouse cursor to screen coordinates'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'desktop_mouse_click', which might also involve mouse movement, though the distinction is somewhat implied by the name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't specify if this is for desktop interactions only (vs. browser tools) or when to prefer 'desktop_mouse_click' for combined move-and-click actions. There's no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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