desktop_drag_to

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and meets it: it discloses automatic source activation, pre-drag endpoint validation, that coordinates share one screenshot, and the key caveat that dispatch does not prove the drop was accepted. These go beyond the bare action and give the agent realistic expectations about side effects and result trustworthiness.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the action, the coordinate constraint, and the verification caveat. The most important information is front-loaded and there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 parameter-heavy automation action with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core elements an agent needs to call it correctly and interpret results cautiously. It omits only refinements such as expected return/error behavior or how it compares to desktop_drag, but the essential behavioral contract is present.

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 compensate, and it only partially does. It clarifies that 'Coordinates refer to one screenshot', which gives meaning to x/y/end_x/end_y and connects them to snapshot_id, and 'both endpoints' maps to source_window_id/target_window_id. However, it leaves button and the exact coordinate frame/origin undefined, relying on self-explanatory names.

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 the specific action and object: 'Drag from a source into a second observed window', which clearly identifies what desktop_drag_to does and differentiates it from desktop_drag and other input tools. It adds a distinctive trait, 'automatically activating the source after validating both endpoints', so an agent can distinguish this tool from sibling drag/hover/click actions.

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 states the intended context explicitly: dragging from a source into a second observed window, which tells the agent when to invoke it. It does not name sibling alternatives or exclude same-window drags, so it stops short of the explicit when/when-not guidance that would earn a 5.

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