mouse_move

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

Annotations already indicate the operation is non-destructive, idempotent, and not read-only. The description adds that it moves to absolute screen coordinates and returns a confirmation string. It does not discuss side effects like hover state or focus changes, but the core behavior is well disclosed.

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 concise and front-loaded: one clear sentence stating the action, followed by compact Args/Returns sections. There is no filler or redundant prose.

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 simple mouse movement tool, the description, annotations, and schema together provide adequate context: behavior, coordinate bounds, idempotency, and non-destructive nature. It does not specify the coordinate origin or multi-monitor behavior, but these are minor for this tool's complexity.

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 reported as 0%, so the description needed to explain x and y semantics, but it only lists the parameter names. The nested schema does define x and y in Hungarian with bounds, which partially mitigates the gap, but the description itself adds no meaning beyond the names.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: moving the mouse cursor to an absolute screen coordinate. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like mouse_click, mouse_double_click, and mouse_scroll by naming the exact action and coordinate system.

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 intended use is clear: position the mouse cursor at an absolute screen coordinate. It implicitly separates this from click/scroll operations, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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