glass_move

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

The description merely restates the primary action and does not disclose side effects, event generation, timing, or prerequisites. Annotations only indicate this is not read-only and not destructive; they do not explain pointer-move behavior.

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 entire description is one precise sentence with no filler. It places the action verb first and the critical 'window-relative' qualifier prominently.

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 two-parameter move command, the description and schema together specify the input and action. However, it omits any context about when to invoke it relative to other pointer tools, and it does not describe what happens after the move, so it is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage of x and y, including window-relative semantics. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond the schema.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('move') and resource ('pointer') with a coordinate target. It identifies the window-relative semantics, which makes it distinct from screen-based moves. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling pointer tools like glass_click or glass_drag, but the action is unambiguous.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., a selected/focused window), no 'use X instead' for clicking or dragging, and no conditional context.

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