Computer Drag

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a stateful UI interaction. It discloses that this performs a drag from one coordinate to another and can move files, but it does not describe press/move/release semantics, timing, modifier keys, coordinate system, safety implications, or reversibility of file moves.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The coordinate mapping comes first and the use cases follow immediately, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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?

With no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and an output schema present, the description is too sparse for a UI action that can move files. It covers the core coordinate mapping but omits behavioral details such as interaction sequence, coordinate system, timing, and side-effect confirmation that an agent would need before invoking it confidently.

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%, but the description compensates by explicitly mapping start_x/start_y as the drag origin and x/y as the destination. It still does not clarify coordinate units, screen origin, or whether coordinates are absolute or relative, leaving a meaningful semantic gap.

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 (Drag) and the exact resource shape (from start_x/start_y to x/y), plus concrete use cases like file moves, sliders, and selection. It is clearly distinguishable from most siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with computer_mouse_down_up, which could also produce dragging behavior.

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 examples 'file moves, sliders, selection' imply when this tool is appropriate, giving the agent some contextual guidance. However, it does not state when to prefer this over computer_click, computer_mouse_down_up, or computer_batch, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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