qemu_mouse_move

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations by disclosing the lock side-effect: 'VM remains locked by this session; call vm_unlock when finished.' This informs the agent about a persistent state change that must be managed, which is not captured by readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, or idempotentHint. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 description is two concise sentences. The first sentence states the action and target clearly, while the second adds essential lock-release guidance. No redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 move action, the description is adequate but leaves gaps: it does not state whether the VM must already be locked before invoking this tool, nor does it mention failure cases (e.g., invalid coordinates, VM not running). The lock-release instruction is helpful, but prerequisites and return behavior are omitted.

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 describes x and y as 'Zero-based physical screen coordinate,' but vm_id lacks a description. The description 'to a running QEMU VM' clarifies the role of vm_id, and 'absolute' adds coordinate semantics, but it does not elaborate on expected values, units, or coordinate system boundaries beyond the schema's min/max.

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 the specific action: 'Send absolute QMP mouse coordinates to a running QEMU VM.' It identifies the verb (send), resource (QEMU VM mouse), and distinguishes from sibling tools like qemu_mouse_click by specifying 'move' and 'absolute QMP mouse coordinates.'

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 usage for moving a mouse within a QEMU VM but does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as mouse_move or qemu_qmp_execute. It provides lifecycle guidance about lock release ('call vm_unlock when finished') but lacks explicit exclusion criteria or alternative tool references.

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