sap_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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether moving the mouse has side effects, whether the operation is instant or animated, whether permissions are needed, or what happens to the cursor position on failure. The only behavioral clue is the coordinate system ('physical screenshot pixels').

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 a single tight sentence that front-loads the action and coordinate system. It contains no filler and is appropriately sized for a brief summary, though it could be slightly more structured with prerequisite or return details.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and four parameters including an enum and a conditional folder argument, the description is substantially incomplete. It covers only the coordinate system for x and y, leaving return_screenshot behavior, as_file_target_folder conditions, and invocation prerequisites entirely unexplained.

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 for all parameters. It clarifies that x and y are in 'physical screenshot pixels', which is useful, but it says nothing about the return_screenshot enum options, its default of 'none', or when as_file_target_folder applies. Two of four parameters receive no semantic explanation.

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 states a specific action ('Move') and target ('within the selected SAP window') with a clear coordinate system ('physical screenshot pixels'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sap_click and sap_scroll by describing pointer movement rather than clicking or scrolling, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 this tool versus alternatives such as sap_click or sap_get_screen. It also omits prerequisites like whether the SAP window must already be selected or focused. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the brief description.

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