zerodom_drag

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the tool 'return what changed,' giving some indication of output behavior. However, it doesn't mention side effects (e.g., whether the drag permanently modifies state), preconditions (e.g., draggable elements), or error behavior. It's minimally transparent but not misleading.

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 concise and well-structured: the core action is front-loaded, followed by illustrative use cases. Two short paragraphs with no redundancy. Every sentence adds value, making it efficient for an agent to parse quickly.

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 an output schema present, the description doesn't need to detail return values. It covers the essential behavior and usage scenarios. However, it lacks explicit parameter semantics and preconditions, which are partially mitigated by the schema and the tool name. Overall, it's sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to invoke it.

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 explain the parameters. It does implicitly define source_node_id and target_node_id through 'Drag source onto target,' but it doesn't specify the expected format (e.g., CSS selectors, IDs) or provide examples. This adds basic meaning but leaves room for ambiguity about how to identify nodes.

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 action: 'Drag source onto target' and explains the purpose with concrete examples (reorder lists, upload zones, sliders). It explicitly contrasts with click/fill pairs, distinguishing it from sibling tools like click_node and fill_node. The verb-resource pairing is specific and unambiguous.

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 gives clear usage context: it's for cases where a click/fill pair can't express the gesture. It implies when to use this tool over simpler interactions and mentions alternatives (click/fill) without naming specific tools. This is strong guidance, though it could be more explicit with sibling names or exclusions.

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