mouse_move

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the core behavior and the screen-coordinate frame, but it does not mention units, coordinate origin, whether the move is instant or animated, or any side effects such as hover events. For a simple input primitive this is borderline adequate but still minimal.

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?

One short, complete sentence with no filler. The action and target are front-loaded, and every word earns its place.

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 two-parameter primitive with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally viable. But it could do more: explicit distinction from mouse_click, coordinate units/origin, and any environmental assumptions (e.g., graphical session required) would improve an agent's ability to invoke it correctly in context.

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?

The schema only says 'X coordinate' and 'Y coordinate', so the description's 'screen coordinates' adds a meaningful coordinate frame beyond the structured properties. It still omits units and origin, but the added context is useful and non-redundant.

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 states a specific verb ('Move'), a specific resource ('cursor'), and a target ('screen coordinates'). This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like mouse_click, which would involve a different action on the same resource.

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 use case is implied by the action itself: use this tool when the cursor needs to be positioned. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it differs from mouse_click in terms of composing actions like move-then-click.

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