page_move_to

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses meaningful movement traits: bezier arc, ease-in-out velocity, sub-pixel tremor, overshoot+correction, and the hover effect. It does not mention timing, failure cases, or whether actual system cursor movement occurs, so it is not a 5.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core action appears first, followed by the human-like movement detail and the practical purpose. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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 three-parameter hover action, the description covers what the tool does, why it is used, and where the required ref comes from. It omits return/error behavior and leaves the standard session/page identifiers undocumented, but these are minor gaps given the tool's low 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 only 33%, and the description does little to compensate. It repeats that ref comes 'from page_a11y', matching the schema, but session_id and page_id remain completely unexplained. The description adds essentially no meaning beyond the input schema for two of the three required parameters.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Move the mouse onto an element (hover)'. It also adds the human-like path and the hover menu/tooltip effect, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling actions like page_click_ref or page_drag.

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?

It clearly indicates when this tool is useful: to trigger hover menus and tooltips, and it gives the prerequisite to pass a ref from page_a11y. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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