Move the pointer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose platform-specific behavior: X11 uses XTest and Wayland uses the compositor's virtual pointer unaccelerated. It still omits practical behavior such as display requirements, multi-monitor handling, error behavior, and implications of window_id or relative coordinates.

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?

Two tightly written sentences front-load the core action and then provide relevant platform-specific implementation details. There is no redundant or filler text.

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 five-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action and platform behavior but leaves key parameter interactions and invocation prerequisites underexplained. It is minimally adequate but not 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?

Schema description coverage is only 40%, and the description explains x/y only in terms of 'absolute output coordinates'. It does not compensate for the undocumented window_id parameter or clarify how the relative boolean and window_id interact with the stated absolute-coordinate behavior, creating ambiguity.

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 states a specific verb and resource: moving the pointer to absolute output coordinates. The word 'absolute' also distinguishes it from the sibling pointer_move_relative, so an agent can identify the intended operation without opening the schema.

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 phrase 'absolute output coordinates' gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate versus relative movement. However, it does not explicitly name pointer_move_relative or state exclusions such as needing an open display, so it falls short of full alternative guidance.

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