Drag one element onto another in the DESKTOP grid browser (by pageId) — reorderable lists, kanban columns, file drop targets. NOT a device — there is no webpage_drag; on a real phone or tablet use device_swipe / device_drag_drop (Android) or ios_drag_drop (iOS), by udid.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | CSS selector of the drop target | |
| from | Yes | CSS selector of the element to drag | |
| pageId | Yes | Page ID from web_navigate |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context about the environment (desktop grid browser, pageId) and device exclusions, but it does not disclose side effects, visibility requirements, waits, or failure behavior of the drag interaction.
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 dense sentences cover the action, scope, typical use cases, and the key device alternatives. There is no filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.
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 three-parameter drag action with fully documented schema, this description is nearly complete: it identifies the target environment, the pageId mechanism, and when to route to other tools. It does not mention return values or error conditions, and it leaves the relationship to web_drag implicit, so it is not a perfect 5.
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 100%: pageId is tied to web_navigate, and from/to are described as CSS selectors. The description adds use-case color (reorderable lists, kanban, file drop) but no additional parameter constraints or syntax beyond what the schema already provides.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Drag one element onto another' in the 'DESKTOP grid browser (by pageId)'. It also lists concrete use cases and explicitly distances itself from device tools, so an agent can distinguish it from the many sibling automation tools.
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?
Provides explicit when-not guidance ('NOT a device') and names Android/iOS alternatives: device_swipe, device_drag_drop, ios_drag_drop. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling web_drag, even though the 'DESKTOP grid browser (by pageId)' qualifier partially covers that distinction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The set contains near-identical duplicate families: web_* and playwright_* expose ~15 pairs of the same desktop-grid-browser operations (web_get_text/playwright_get_text, web_reload/playwright_reload), and screenshot/log/network/mock capabilities each have 5-8 entry points (device_screenshot vs android_mjpeg_screenshot vs ios_screenshot vs ios_fast_screenshot vs web_screenshot vs webpage_screenshot vs session_screenshot). Many individual descriptions carefully draw boundaries (devtools vs traffic, HID vs session), but an agent cannot reliably distinguish web_* from playwright_*, and ios_screenshot/ios_fast_screenshot/ios_mjpeg_screenshot blur together.
The prefix scheme is broken: Android functionality is split arbitrarily between android_* and device_* (device_screenshot vs android_mjpeg_screenshot), the desktop browser gets two parallel prefixes (web_* and playwright_*), and verbs vary across equivalents (device_navigate_url vs web_navigate vs ios_safari_navigate). session_* uses bare verbs (session_url, session_back), and the same concept gets different names (ios_clipboard_get_hid vs ios_get_pasteboard; device_screen vs ios_orientation).
333 tools is an extreme count by any measure — far beyond the 50+ threshold — and much of the bulk is duplicative (the web_*/playwright_* pairs alone double ~15 slots) or out-of-scope for a device-control server (TestRail, Jira, AzDO, agent memory, secret variables, feedback). Even granting that remote device control + test automation is a broad domain, this surface will devastate agent context budgets and is impossible to navigate coherently.
The core device-control and test-automation domain is remarkably thorough: Android and iOS each have full interaction, app-lifecycle, file, network/proxy, performance, crash, accessibility, recording, and replay coverage, with CRUD lifecycles for flows, suites, app uploads, TestRail cases, and visual-review baselines. Minor gaps exist at the margins — Jira/AzDO lack update/transition/comment operations, and iOS cannot open/close tabs — but the central workflows have no dead ends.
