mouse_move

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers: it explains off-screen coordinates are refused rather than clamped, safe-mode vs. lab approval behavior, and default browser-tab foregrounding/verification after the quiet-input check.

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 dense but every sentence contributes distinct information, with the most important coordinate-system distinction front-loaded. There is no filler or repetition of structured fields.

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 tool with no annotations and an output schema present, the description covers coordinate space, error handling, approval flow, session activation, and browser-tab behavior. Nothing critical for selecting and invoking the tool correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It richly explains x/y physical-pixel semantics and the session_id/activate_session behaviors. However, the duration parameter is left entirely to inference, and its units are not specified.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Move the real mouse cursor to absolute virtual-desktop coordinates in PHYSICAL screen pixels.' It clearly differentiates this from related tools by stating the coordinate space differs from page_click and is shared with pointer_info and capture_desktop_screenshot.

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 explicit usage context: it names page_click as the CSS-pixel alternative, advises preferring an explicit session_id for browser input, and restricts activate_session='none' to intentional desktop/native-UI input. This tells an agent when and how to use the tool versus alternatives.

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