hover

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

Annotations already supply the risk profile (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description contributes the useful "compatibility alias" framing (implying a preferred canonical tool) and clarifies no click event fires, but it omits any mention of the confirmation_token / high-risk approval flow that its own schema exposes.

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 no wasted words; the non-clicking constraint appears immediately. It is perhaps too terse for a nine-parameter tool, but nothing is padded.

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 nine-parameter, open-world, destructive-flagged tool with no output schema, one sentence is thin. It says nothing about the required app selector, coordinate-space defaults, element resolution order, or when the confirmation_token flow is triggered, all of which an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 100%, so the nine parameters, including the coordinate_space enum and element_click_mode enum, are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no targeting precedence (element_index vs name vs coordinate) or app-selector guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb+resource ("move the background pointer to an element or coordinate") and adds a distinguishing scope note ("without clicking"), which separates it from the many click* siblings. However, "Compatibility alias" never says what this aliases (presumably move_mouse), leaving the relationship to siblings ambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance. The "without clicking" clause hints at a non-clicking alternative to click/move_mouse but never names those siblings or states a condition for choosing hover over them, despite ~40 sibling tools including move_mouse, click, and click_text.

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