move

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond them: it does not say whether coordinates are absolute screen pixels or guest-relative, what happens if x/y fall outside the guest resolution, or whether out-of-bounds values error or clamp.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient rather than padded, though the terseness leaves little structure for the agent to anchor on.

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-required-parameter input tool with no output schema and a destructive annotation, the description should at minimum pin down the coordinate frame and bounds behavior. As written, the agent knows what the tool does conceptually but not enough to call it correctly in a specific guest environment.

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 0% for both required parameters, so the description carries the full burden. "To a pixel" hints that x and y are pixel coordinates, but gives no origin, no unit conventions relative to guest resolution, no valid range, and no note that both are mandatory.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Move") with a specific target ("the guest pointer") and an outcome ("to a pixel"), so an agent can tell it apart from click/scroll/type siblings without opening a schema. It stops short of explicitly stating the move does not click, which is the main disambiguation an agent needs against the nearest sibling.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., that the session must be started first), and no statement about whether a move must precede click or whether hovering has side effects. The agent must infer the tool's role from the name alone.

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