Desktop: Move

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, the main added context is the permission requirement, which is real value. But the description never explains the destructive potential the annotations flag (a drag performs an actual press-drag-release that can drop/move on-screen items), leaving the agent unaware of the risk.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core action and the optional drag immediately front-loaded and the prerequisite trailing. Every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema and parameters are fully described, so the agent can call the tool. Still missing are mechanics that matter for reliable use — which mouse button the drag uses, whether the window must be focused, and any explanation of the destructiveHint=true annotation for this seemingly benign action.

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 100%: x, y, from_x and from_y are each documented inline, including 'omit for plain move'. The description only restates the drag-pair concept the schema already covers, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 mouse to coordinates') plus a notable variant ('optional drag from a start position'), which cleanly separates it from desktop_click and desktop_scroll. It does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from the similarly named cdp_move sibling, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 precondition 'Requires desktop_permission in the active mission step' is genuinely useful usage context. However, it gives no guidance on when to pick this over cdp_move (browser-scoped) or when a click/type tool is the better call — the agent must infer the routing.

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