move_mouse

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers nothing: no indication of whether movement is simulated instantly or animated, whether the move is relative or absolute, whether it triggers hover events, or what it returns.

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?

It is short, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than conciseness; every sentence fails to earn its place because the text conveys no actionable information. The parenthetical '(alias)' is unexplained noise.

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 3-parameter interaction tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema documentation, the definition is wholly inadequate — an agent has no basis for choosing it over mouse, hover, or drag, or for supplying the steps argument correctly.

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% across three parameters. The description adds no meaning to x, y, or the optional steps parameter — notably, steps (presumably interpolation count for animated movement) is completely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 merely restates the tool name with the addition of '(alias)', which conveys no information about scope, target surface, or behavior. It does not distinguish move_mouse from siblings such as mouse, hover, drag, or mouse_down/mouse_up, leaving the agent to guess how they differ.

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 when-to-use guidance whatsoever. The description does not say whether this is for viewport coordinates, page coordinates, or a relative move, nor does it mention any alternative tool for related actions like hover or drag.

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