mouse_move

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it discloses the smooth, curved, eased path and the 'real cursor' nature. It also advises on appropriate timing. It doesn't mention edge cases or return values, but the core behavior is well described.

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 sentences, with the main action first and guidance second. No 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 mouse move tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and parameter guidance. It omits potential error handling, but that's likely not critical for this low-complexity tool.

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 all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a recommended ms range (600–1000ms) and links it to on-camera moves, which is useful beyond the schema.

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 tool's action: moving the real cursor to screen coordinates with a specific motion style. It distinguishes itself from sibling mouse tools (mouse_drag, mouse_click) by focusing on cursor movement and its human-like presentation.

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?

It provides context for use ('like a human presenter', 'on-camera moves') and specific duration guidance for the ms parameter. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or alternative tools for other gestures.

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