boxes.drag_drop

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only says 'Experimental', which hints at instability but gives no detail on side effects, mutability, permission requirements, or consequences of the drag-and-drop (e.g., whether files are copied/moved/deleted). This is insufficient for a tool that likely performs file system operations on a guest VM.

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 very brief (one sentence) and gets to the point. However, the word 'Experimental' is a placeholder that conveys no actionable information. It is not overly verbose but lacks structural organization (e.g., no usage hints or parameter context).

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, no output schema, and eight input parameters, this description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the meaning of width/height/timeout, coordinateSpace semantics, or preconditions (e.g., the BOXES_TRANSFER_ROOT directory). The 'Experimental' label is vague and does not clarify reliability or failure modes. The tool likely has significant side effects (file transfer, mouse manipulation) that are undisclosed.

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 descriptions only cover nameOrUuid and sourcePath (25% coverage). The description mentions 'SPICE file transfer' and 'mouse drag-and-drop', which implies x,y are coordinates and width/height likely define a target area, but it does not explicitly explain these or coordinateSpace, timeoutMs, or their relationships. The description adds minimal interpretive value beyond the 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 states a specific verb+resource (

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 no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., boxes.upload, boxes.display). It does not mention prerequisites, typical interaction flows, or when this tool would be inappropriate (e.g., headless environments). Sibling tools like boxes.mouse and boxes.clipboard are not referenced at all, so the agent must infer usage context from the schema.

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