mouse_move

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

Adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations by disclosing that the VM remains locked by this session and instructing the agent to call vm_unlock when finished. The annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, and the readOnlyHint=false aligns with the description's write-like mouse movement. No contradiction found.

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 compact sentence front-loads the core action and appends the essential lock caveat. There is no filler, restatement, or unnecessary detail; every word contributes to the agent's understanding.

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 mouse-movement tool, the action and post-condition are clear, and the annotations cover safety and idempotency. The main gaps are the undocumented duration_ms parameter and the lack of sibling differentiation, but required parameters are in the schema and the operation is straightforward.

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 echoes the x/y meaning ('zero-based physical pixel coordinate') but adds little beyond the schema's existing descriptions. It says nothing about vm_name and, more importantly, leaves the optional duration_ms parameter completely unexplained, even though the schema provides no description for it. With only 75% schema coverage, the description does not adequately compensate.

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 concrete action ('Move the mouse') with a precise target ('exact zero-based physical pixel coordinate'). It clearly distinguishes what it does from read-style tools like mouse_position, but it does not differentiate itself from the sibling qemu_mouse_move or explain its relationship to mouse_drag/mouse_click.

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 only usage guidance is the lock lifecycle: 'VM remains locked by this session; call vm_unlock when finished.' This is a useful post-condition, but it does not say when to prefer this tool over qemu_mouse_move, mouse_drag, or other input tools, nor does it state any exclusions or alternatives.

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