console_mouse_move

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-idempotent, potentially destructive operation. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the coordinate system: it does not explain what could be disrupted, whether an active console session is required, or how the move interacts with subsequent clicks.

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 well-structured sentence with no wasted words. The most important clarification (guest-display vs host-window coordinates) is front-loaded and explicit.

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 three-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is minimally adequate. It still lacks the operational context an agent might need: console-session prerequisites, interaction with click/button tools, and the meaning of vm_name.

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 meaningfully clarifies that x and y are absolute guest-display pixel coordinates, not host-window coordinates, which is valuable. It does not address the vm_name parameter at all, leaving part of the input semantics undocumented.

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 synthetic mouse') and adds a crucial scope clarification about absolute guest-display pixel coordinates. It does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like console_click or console_mouse_buttons, so it is clear but not fully disambiguated.

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 gives no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as console_click (which likely combines movement with clicking) or console_mouse_buttons. Usage is only implied by the word 'move'.

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