imgui_set_mouse_pos

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 that 'set mouse cursor position' is an input action, which implies it alters mouse state. However, it doesn't clarify whether this triggers hover events, whether it affects subsequent click coordinates, whether it produces any visual feedback, or whether there are coordinate space concerns (e.g., window vs screen origin). These are material behaviors for an input tool.

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?

A single declarative sentence that conveys the purpose efficiently. It is appropriately short for a simple 2-parameter tool, though it could earn a place for a line about usage context. No fluff or 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 tool is simple (2 params, no output schema, no nested objects). The description covers the core action and coordinate space. However, it doesn't mention edge behaviors like whether negative coordinates are clamped, whether the position is relative to the viewport or the window, or related input tools to consider. For such a simple tool, this is borderline adequate.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The schema documents both parameters as X and Y coordinates. The description adds the key context that they are 'screen coordinates,' which clarifies the coordinate space beyond the bare schema, but adds nothing else about ranges, bounds, or units.

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 it sets the mouse cursor position in screen coordinates, using a specific verb ('set') and resource ('mouse cursor position'). It's clear enough, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool imgui_click_widget which also implicitly moves the cursor as part of clicking. The verb+resource is specific and distinct.

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 is provided about when to use this tool vs alternatives like imgui_click_widget, imgui_hover_widget, or imgui_get_input_state. There are no stated use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description is purely declarative with no situational context.

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