qt_mouse_move

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool moves the pointer without pressing buttons, that it can be used for dragging between press/release, and that coordinates are relative to the element's top-left corner. This adds meaningful context about how the tool behaves, though it does not mention potential error conditions or return value semantics, which are partially covered by the output schema.

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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core action and constraint ('Move the mouse pointer... no buttons'), while the second sentence provides usage context and coordinate semantics. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or fluff, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool is simple, and the description provides the essential context: what it does, how to use it (drag/hover), and coordinate meaning. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. It lacks mention of edge cases like invalid element IDs or out-of-bounds coordinates, but for a simple mouse-move tool, the description is largely complete. A small gap is the absence of any note about whether the move is instantaneous or animated, but this is not critical.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains x/y as 'coordinates relative to the element's top-left corner,' adding meaning to those parameters. However, session_id and element_id are not explicitly described, though their roles are inferable from the tool's name and context (session-based Qt automation). The description only partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions, so it meets the baseline but does not fully document all parameters.

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 tool's function: 'Move the mouse pointer to an element-local position (no buttons).' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like qt_mouse_press, qt_mouse_release, and qt_mouse_click, which involve button actions. The phrase 'no buttons' explicitly differentiates it from click/press/release 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 description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use between qt_mouse_press and qt_mouse_release to drag, or alone to hover.' This clearly states when to use the tool in a sequence and names sibling tools, giving context for the intended workflow. It does not explicitly exclude other use cases (e.g., clicking), but the 'no buttons' note and drag/hover guidance imply the appropriate context.

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