configure_cursor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and handles it thoroughly. It discloses that omitted items are unchanged, that the acquisition is untouched, that no output is driven, that mode-dependent parameter subtrees are enforced, and that the device may snap values so the read-back value should be trusted.

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 long but information-dense, with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and side-effect safety statement, then organized by parameter group. Every sentence contributes a meaningful constraint or clarification.

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?

Given nine parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers valid/invalid combinations, what happens when mode is omitted, the requirement to specify at least one item, and how to interpret the applied/read-back value. An agent has enough context to call this tool 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 0%, so the description must explain all parameters, and it does. It defines mode values, manual versus track parameter ownership, type values, allowed source names, and units for ax, ay, bx, by. This goes substantially beyond the bare schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Configure the on-screen measurement cursors.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from get_cursor_measurement by stating this tool only moves cursors, while reading cursor reports belongs to another tool.

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 explicitly points to get_cursor_measurement as the read counterpart, drawing a clear write-vs-read boundary. It also gives detailed conditions for when modes and position parameters are valid. It does not broadly enumerate alternatives among the many configure_* siblings, but the intended scope is clear enough.

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