computer_move

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states the core action—moving the cursor to screen coordinates—but does not clarify that it does not click or drag, how the movement is performed, or whether hover events are triggered. The behavior is not misleading, but extra transparency is limited.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every part contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and target.

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 a full schema and an output schema present, the description plus structured data is nearly sufficient. The only minor gaps are the lack of explicit no-click/drag clarification and coordinate origin, but these are not critical for basic 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?

The schema already fully describes both parameters as X and Y coordinates in pixels, so the description adds no additional semantic value beyond what is structured. This matches the baseline for 100% schema description coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Move') and resource ('cursor') with a precise target ('specified screen coordinates'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like computer_click, computer_drag, and computer_get_cursor_position, so an agent can tell what it does without needing to open the schema.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as computer_click or computer_drag. It does not state prerequisites, whether it should be used before a click, or when a different cursor-related tool would be more appropriate.

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