Move the desktop pointer

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

Annotations already cover idempotency and destructiveness. The description adds the key context that coordinates are relative to the latest screenshot, which is useful. However, it does not describe potential side effects (e.g., pointer motion animation) or failure modes, so it only partially goes beyond the annotations.

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, focused sentence that wastes no words. It explains the core action, coordinate source, and scope immediately, making it highly scannable and effective.

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 two-parameter tool with annotations and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it names the action, the coordinate reference, and implies the prerequisite of a screenshot. It could mention the relationship to 'take_screenshot' or 'click' for fuller contextual integration, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 only defines x and y as integers. The description enriches these by stating they are 'absolute coordinates from the latest screenshot', clarifying their meaning and coordinate system. Since schema coverage is 0%, this is a significant contribution, though it could be more explicit about whether coordinates are pixel-based or relative to the screenshot's resolution.

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 action ('move'), the target resource ('pointer'), and the specific coordinate basis ('absolute coordinates from the latest screenshot'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'click' or 'drag_pointer' by specifying that it only moves, and the coordinate reference is unique.

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 implies usage context: it should be used after taking a screenshot, since coordinates are derived from that screenshot. This provides clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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