glass_move

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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation aspect is covered. The description adds 'window-relative' coordinate semantics, but it doesn't disclose additional behavior such as hover side effects or whether this moves the OS cursor. No contradiction exists between annotations and description.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the core action, the second provides routing guidance for an alternative. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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 pointer-move tool with only two required parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the coordinate semantics and the main alternative batching path, though it doesn't mention possible side effects or success criteria.

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 input schema fully documents both x and y, including window-relative meaning and edge clarifications. The description echoes 'window-relative coordinates' but adds no extra semantic information beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Move'), a clear resource ('the pointer'), and target coordinates. It also distinguishes itself from related tools by referencing glass_do for batched actions, so an agent can tell what this tool does without ambiguity.

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 says to use glass_do instead of separate calls when at least two next actions or waits are known. This provides clear when-not-to-use guidance and names the alternative, which is exactly what an agent needs for tool selection.

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