Move Mouse

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only operation, but not destructive. The description adds crucial behavioral context: the coordinate system (top-left origin, points not pixels) and the Accessibility permission requirement, which 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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action. Every word adds value: the verb, target, coordinate system, and permission requirement are all clearly stated without fluff.

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 tool with two numeric parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the essential context: what it does, coordinate system, and a prerequisite. It does not mention edge cases like out-of-bounds coordinates, but such details are less critical for this basic operation.

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 100% and each parameter is described as 'Target X/Y in global screen points'. The description reinforces the meaning by clarifying 'points not pixels', adding value beyond the schema by disambiguating the unit of measurement.

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 resource (mouse cursor), and the destination (global screen point), with additional coordinate system clarity (top-left origin, points not pixels). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like input_click and input_drag.

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 for moving the cursor but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as click or drag. It does provide a prerequisite (Requires Accessibility permission), which offers some context for when it can be used.

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