Scroll with the mouse wheel

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: the confirmation gate for high-risk intent, the mandatory intent argument, and the click-to-notch ratio. It does not disclose whether x/y reposition the cursor as a side effect, nor the 20-click cap, but the safety profile is already carried by readOnlyHint=false/destructiveHint=false.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then the unit of measurement, then the mandatory-argument rule. No filler; every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but with six parameters at 0% schema coverage the description leaves the optional x/y override and target_description unexplained, and the max of 20 clicks undocumented. Adequate for the core call, incomplete for the full parameter surface.

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 description must compensate; it explains 'clicks' (wheel notch unit) and 'intent' (mandatory, may trigger confirmation), roughly two of six parameters. It says nothing about x/y or target_description, and the schema itself mislabels y as a 'Horizontal coordinate', which the description does not resolve.

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 ('scroll up or down') and pins the effect to 'the current cursor location', plus a concrete unit ('one click is one wheel notch'). It is clearly distinguishable from mouse_move/mouse_click by the wheel-scroll framing, though it never names a sibling to contrast with.

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 only conditional guidance is 'intent is mandatory; high-risk semantic intent is confirmed first', which is a precondition rather than when-to-use/when-not guidance. Nothing tells the agent how to decide between scrolling and, say, mouse_move-then-click or computer_observe to reach off-screen content; that is left to inference.

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