mouse_move

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It plainly states the action and the absence of clicking, which is useful, but it does not mention potential side effects such as triggering hover events, whether movement is instant or animated, or any limitations on coordinate values.

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 sentence with no filler, and the key constraint ('without clicking') is included immediately. Every word 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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description plus schema is nearly complete. It could additionally mention how hover side effects or coordinate mapping work, but those are not required for basic correct invocation.

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%: both x and y are already documented as pixel coordinates in the screenshot coordinate space. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed because the schema already gives sufficient semantic context.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Move') with a clear resource ('mouse cursor') and target ('specified coordinates'), plus an explicit constraint ('without clicking'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling click, double-click, and drag operations.

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 phrase 'without clicking' effectively communicates that this tool is for pure cursor positioning or hover behavior, not for click-based actions. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools such as left_click or cursor_position or state when-not-to-use conditions.

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