mouse_move

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the key trait (no click occurs), but leaves critical behavior undisclosed: whether coordinates are absolute or relative, what the target.type field controls, how multi-display environments are handled, and what happens on out-of-bounds targets. For a tool with several display-related siblings, this is a notable gap.

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 zero wasted words. The verb and resource lead, and the parenthetical 'hover' earns its place by disambiguating from the click operations.

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 one-parameter tool the description covers the action, but correct invocation is blocked by the unexplained required target.type field, and there is no output schema or annotation to fill in behavior. The agent has enough to know what the tool does but not enough to call it confidently with a valid type value.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds the meaning 'coordinate' to the target parameter, but the required nested 'type' string field has no enum and is entirely unexplained, and the units/origin of x and y are unspecified. The agent still cannot correctly populate the required type field.

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 ('Move'), a specific resource ('virtual pointer'), and a coordinate target, with the qualifier 'without clicking (hover)' explicitly distinguishing it from the click-family siblings (left_click, right_click, double_click, left_click_drag). An agent can tell this is a hover-positioning operation at a glance.

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 hover qualifier implies when to use it — when the pointer must be positioned without activating a click — but no explicit when-not-to-use conditions or named alternatives are given. It does not, for example, tell the agent to prefer cursor_position when only reading the current pointer location.

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