Mouse Move

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

Behavioral context is added beyond annotations by clarifying that the pointer is synthetic and the user's physical cursor stays put. Annotations already indicate a non-read, destructive-ish action, and the description complements that by explaining the key side-effect boundary without contradicting it.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, and the most important behavioral distinction—synthetic pointer vs. physical cursor—is stated immediately.

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?

The schema covers the coordinate object variants and return_state, while annotations cover the mutation/safety profile. The description adds the crucial physical-cursor behavior. However, app_ref semantics are left unexplained and there is no output schema, so an agent still has some gaps when invoking the tool 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?

The description adds no information about the coordinate variants, app_ref, or return_state. The schema does describe coordinate and return_state, but coverage is only 33% and app_ref remains undocumented. Since schema coverage is low, the description should compensate, but it does not.

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 identifies a specific verb ('Move'), a specific resource ('synthesized pointer'), and the key distinction that the physical cursor is unaffected. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like cursor_position or left_click_drag without needing to open 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 description implies when this tool is appropriate: when pointer movement should not disturb the user's physical cursor. However, it gives no explicit guidance about alternatives, such as using left_click_drag for drag operations or cursor_position for reading the current pointer location.

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