move_mouse_window

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait: the tool does not move the physical cursor (only posts a message). It also indicates the intended effect (hover states). However, it omits potential side effects, blocking behavior, or error handling.

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 action and key details, with no unnecessary words or repetition.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is brief and covers the primary purpose and use case. It does not explain how to target the window (via hwnd, pid, etc.) or discuss return values or error conditions. The sibling tools context helps, but the description could be more complete.

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 57% (4 of 7 parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no new parameter information beyond what is in the schema; it only mentions 'window-relative coordinate' which is already described for x and y. The undocumented parameters (pid, processName, titleContains) are not explained.

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: posting a WM_MOUSEMOVE message to a window-relative coordinate without moving the physical cursor. It specifies the use case (hover states before screenshot) and distinguishes from sibling tools (no other tool moves the mouse without clicking).

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 a clear use case ('useful for hover states before taking a screenshot'), which guides when to use it. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the sibling tools imply that this is for simulated hover without cursor movement.

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