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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It describes the gesture mechanics (hold then move over duration) and states the active-session requirement. However, it doesn't disclose behavior like whether the drag may trigger long-press context menus, what happens on failure, or response format. Decent but not rich.

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?

Three efficient sentences: action + mechanics, distinction + use cases, coordinate/requirement notes. Zero filler, all sentences earn their place with front-loaded action verb.

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?

Complexity is moderate (7 params, no output schema). The description covers the gesture fully, prerequisites, and use cases. With full schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides adequate context for an agent to select and invoke correctly. Could mention what the return value looks like, but not critical for a gesture tool.

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 100% with all 7 parameters documented. The description adds value by explaining holdMs as the grab-phase duration and durationMs as motion duration, plus describing coordinates as 'screen points'. It clarifies the semantic relationship between parameters (hold before motion), going slightly beyond the schema's individual descriptions.

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+resource: 'Drag-and-drop on an iOS device' with the exact gesture mechanics (hold at (x1,y1), move to (x2,y2)). It explicitly distinguishes from ios_swipe (no explicit hold) and provides concrete use cases (icon reorder, drag-into-folder, slide-to-confirm), making it clearly differentiated from siblings.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('home-screen icon reorder, drag-into-folder, slide-to-confirm') and distinguishes from ios_swipe which lacks the hold phase. It also specifies a prerequisite ('Requires an active iOS automation session'). This is strong usage guidance.

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