computer.move_mouse

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

The description directly states that it moves the mouse cursor, which is the core behavior. It adds some value by enumerating target types, but it does not disclose whether this only hovers, what happens with invalid targets, or whether any side effects such as hover-triggered UI changes occur. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it only partially covers this.

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 sentence with no filler or redundant information. It front-loads the action and then immediately clarifies the three accepted target forms. This is an appropriate level of brevity for a simple tool.

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 that there are no annotations and no output schema, the description alone must provide enough context for correct invocation. It specifies the three target types but fails to explain how coordinates should be structured, whether text is exact or fuzzy, or what the tool returns or does after moving. An agent might struggle to construct a valid 'target' object for coordinates.

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 input schema provides no descriptions for the 'target' parameter and only says it is a string or an object with additional properties. The description significantly compensates by explaining that target can be text, element id, or coordinates. However, it does not specify the exact structure for coordinates or how element IDs are represented, so some ambiguity remains.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Move the mouse cursor to a target.' The target types (text, element id, coordinates) add useful specificity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like click, double_click, or drag, which also relate to cursor positioning and interaction.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not say 'use before click' or 'for interacting with elements use click instead.' The intended context is implied but not stated, leaving the agent without explicit routing information.

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