Orgo MCP Server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, etc., indicating this is a non-destructive action. The description adds minimal behavioral context by mentioning it's 'useful for drag-and-drop operations' and returns a confirmation string, but doesn't elaborate on side effects, permissions needed, or error conditions beyond what annotations provide.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage examples, Args, Returns). It's appropriately sized for a tool with multiple parameters, though the 'useful for' examples could be more concise. Every sentence adds value, and 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (6 parameters, no annotations contradiction, has output schema), the description is mostly complete. It explains the purpose, parameters, and return value. The output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to detail return values further. Minor gaps include lack of error handling or performance considerations.

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 description provides comprehensive parameter details in the Args section, including all six parameters with their types, descriptions, and default values. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description fully compensates by documenting what each parameter means, adding significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states the tool performs drag operations ('Drag from one position to another'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'orgo_click' or 'orgo_double_click' in terms of when to use drag versus other mouse interactions.

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 provides some implied usage context by mentioning 'drag-and-drop operations, selecting text, or resizing windows,' which gives general scenarios. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'orgo_click' or 'orgo_scroll,' and doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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