ui_drag

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently explains that the tool dispatches a real press, several intermediate moves, and a release, and why that sequence matters. This is valuable beyond the schema.

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 sentences, both purposeful. The first states what the tool does with concrete use cases; the second explains the behavioral mechanism and its rationale. No wasted words.

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 an action-oriented tool with no output schema, the description plus fully documented 9-parameter schema is largely complete. It covers the drag lifecycle and target/source concept. A minor gap is that it does not describe what is returned or how success is reported, but this is not critical for a UI interaction 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?

The schema already provides 100% parameter coverage with detailed descriptions, defaults, and ranges, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-specific details, but it is not necessary given the schema's completeness.

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 action (drag one element onto another) with concrete examples (reordering rows, moving cards, resizing a split). It clearly identifies the resource and operation, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling UI tools like ui_click or ui_hover.

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 imply when to use the tool, but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative to prefer. The phrase 'drag implementations almost always ignore...' gives rationale rather than usage boundaries.

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