Move the mouse

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

Annotations declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false, which together mark this as a non-idempotent state-changing input action. The description adds the meaningful behavioral distinction that the same tool drives two different targets depending on which params are used. It does not say whether movement is instantaneous, how repeated calls accumulate, or what happens with no parameters (0 required), leaving gaps beyond the annotations.

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 dense sentence with zero filler; the relative-mode semantics are front-loaded and the absolute-mode behavior follows. Every clause earns its place, and no words are wasted on restating the name or title.

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 four-parameter, zero-required tool with no output schema and thin annotations, the description covers the core mode semantics but leaves the agent without guidance on precedence between x/y and dx/dy, units, or the effect of calling with no parameters. Adequate but not complete.

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 0% and none of the four integer parameters carry descriptions, so the description carries the full semantic burden—and it does so well by mapping dx/dy to relative camera movement and x/y to absolute screen pixels. It omits units for dx/dy (degrees vs pixels), accepted defaults, and precedence when both pairs are provided.

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 concrete verb and resource (mouse movement) and splits it into two distinct modes: relative dx/dy for the in-game camera and absolute x/y for NUI cursors. That dual-mode semantics is more than the title 'Move the mouse' conveys. It stops short of naming which siblings (click, scroll) it should be paired with, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

It implies when each mode applies—relative for camera control, absolute for NUI elements—which is genuine routing guidance for two of the four parameters. However, it never states when to choose this tool over click/scroll or how the two modes interact if both are supplied, so usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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