Move mouse

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does surface one genuine side effect — waking a sleeping display — which is real behavioral value beyond the schema, but it omits whether the move is instant or animated, what happens with out-of-bounds or negative coordinates, and any permission requirements.

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 front-loaded sentence with the action first and the side-effect note in parentheses; every clause carries information and nothing is redundant.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description covers purpose and one side effect but leaves key calling details unspecified — coordinate origin, pixel units, and multi-monitor/bounds behavior. It is adequate to call the tool in the common case but thin for edge cases.

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 coverage is 0%, so the schema only tells the agent that x and y are numbers. The description meaningfully adds that they are ABSOLUTE screen coordinates rather than deltas, which is the single most important semantic distinction here. It still omits the coordinate origin and units, so the two undocumented params are only partly compensated for.

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 ('moves') plus the resource ('the pointer') and the exact target space ('absolute screen coordinates'), which separates it from relative-motion siblings like drag or scroll. It does not explicitly name a sibling it replaces, so an agent must infer that click/drag are the alternatives when a click is also wanted.

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 explicit 'use this when…' or 'do not use this when…' guidance; the only usage signal is the parenthetical that it wakes a sleeping display, which implies a valid hang-recovery use case. The agent is left to infer that this is the hover-only alternative to click or drag.

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