Move the pointer by a delta

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two real behavioral traits — motion is compositor-side and bypasses pointer acceleration — which matters for raw-delta consumers. It does not say whether the cursor visibly moves, whether a pointer-lock/capture state is required, or what units the deltas are in.

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 sentences, no filler, with the mechanism stated first and the targeting guidance second. Every clause contributes information.

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 input-injection tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and audience well but leaves delta units, return behavior, and interaction prerequisites unaddressed.

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 33%: only 'id' is documented in the schema, and the description never explains dx/dy units, sign convention, or the relationship to compositor scale. 'Relative motion' gives partial semantic framing, but for low coverage the description should compensate more than it does.

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?

States a specific action and resource: 'Relative pointer motion', with the qualifier 'compositor-side, unaccelerated' pinning down the mechanism. The 'relative' framing implicitly separates it from the sibling pointer_move (absolute), but it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use guidance with named consumers: emulated PS/2 mice (86Box, QEMU), games that capture the pointer, camera controls. It lacks an explicit exclusion clause ('for absolute positioning use pointer_move'), so the routing is inferred rather than stated.

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