Move Mouse

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints at failure via the error string but says nothing about coordinate bounds/off-screen behavior, negative coordinates, required permissions or desktop-session preconditions, or side effects. Return-shape detail is largely redundant given an output schema already 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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first line, followed by structured Args/Returns/Examples sections where each line carries information. It is somewhat longer than necessary because the Returns block duplicates the output schema, but nothing is padding.

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 3-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, the description covers every parameter, both call modes, and error signalling, and an output schema covers returns. The remaining gap is behavioral/environmental (bounds, session requirements) and sibling routing, not the mechanics of calling it.

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 supply all parameter meaning — and it does: x with origin at left, y with origin at top, and relative with its default and its meaning relative to the current position. Two worked examples further disambiguate absolute versus relative calls, fully compensating for the schema gap.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb+resource ('Move mouse') plus the scope ('to specified screen coordinates'), which is unambiguous and separable from click_mouse/drag_mouse/scroll_mouse. It does not explicitly name or contrast with those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use move_mouse versus click_mouse, drag_mouse, or execute_action, nor any prerequisite (e.g. an active desktop session). The examples demonstrate invocation syntax only, not selection criteria, leaving the agent to infer context.

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