desktop_move

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the key non-effect ('without clicking') and the core action, but does not mention coordinate-space semantics, whether movement is absolute screen position, or that the optional duration controls the movement speed.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core action and the key exclusion.

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 tool is simple, but with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the definition leaves meaningful gaps: coordinate system/units and duration semantics are undocumented. An agent can probably call it, but not with full confidence about coordinate interpretation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It names x and y, but adds no meaning about units, coordinate origin, bounds, or the duration parameter's units/behavior. The optional duration is entirely unexplained beyond the schema default.

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 verb and resource: 'Move the mouse to (x, y)'. The qualifier 'without clicking' clearly differentiates it from sibling desktop_click and other desktop input tools, so an agent can identify the operation precisely.

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 makes the intended use clear by emphasizing no click is performed, which effectively routes the agent away from desktop_click. It does not explicitly name alternatives or give when-to-use conditions, but the context is sufficient for sibling differentiation.

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