mouse_move

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a meaningful behavioral trait: 'steps>0 interpolates path (human-like)'. However, it does not mention coordinate system, side effects, or what happens on completion, so transparency is partial.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action and adds the key behavioral caveat. It is efficient and easy to parse, though slightly more structural detail about coordinate semantics would improve it without bloat.

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 tool is simple with only three parameters and no output schema, so the description need not be lengthy. It covers the main action and interpolation behavior, but leaves ambiguity around coordinate interpretation and does not state any return value or failure conditions.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate for undocumented x and y parameters. It only repeats that they are coordinates without clarifying units, origin, or required format. The steps parameter is already described in the schema, and the description adds only the 'human-like' nuance.

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?

Description clearly states the action: 'Move mouse to x,y' with a specific verb and resource. It is easy to distinguish from siblings like mouse_click_xy because it focuses on moving rather than clicking, though it does not explicitly name the distinction.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mouse_click_xy, drag_and_drop, or humanize_click. The intended use is only implied by the name and description, with no exclusions or alternative routing.

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