da_move_mouse

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it moves the cursor but doesn't disclose whether coordinates are primary-monitor-relative vs global multi-monitor, whether the move is instant (given durationMs is optional), or any OS-level quirks. For a physical-action tool with zero annotation coverage, more disclosure is expected.

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?

Single sentence, zero waste, gets to the point immediately. The key qualifiers (absolute, screen coordinates) are front-loaded. Not verbose but appropriately brief for the simplicity of the operation.

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?

Contextual signals show a 3-parameter tool with no output schema, no enum constraints, and 0% schema coverage. durationMs is entirely unexplained. The description doesn't address coordinate system ambiguity (primary vs. virtual desktop), which is a common real-world concern for multi-monitor setups. Given the tool's simplicity, this is acceptable but leaves meaningful gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only explains what x/y mean generically ('absolute screen coordinates'). It gives no explanation of durationMs (the optional third parameter), which is completely undocumented. The description adds minimal meaning beyond what the schema property names already convey.

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?

Description states the specific verb 'Move' + resource 'cursor' with clear scope: absolute (x,y) screen coordinates. It's distinct from siblings like da_get_mouse_position (which reads), and the absolute-coordinates qualifier differentiates from relative movements. However, it doesn't name sibling tools for disambiguation beyond the inherent clarity.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives like da_drag (which also moves) or da_click. It doesn't state prerequisites (e.g., multi-monitor coordinate implications) or when this is preferred over other movement approaches. Context is implied but no exclusions or alternates are named.

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