raw_drag

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

The description warns that it 'may open a dialog or change project state', which partially discloses side effects, but it is vague and does not specify what exactly happens. No annotations are provided to assist further.

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 extremely concise, using only two sentences. It avoids fluff and directly communicates the core information.

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?

While the description gives a basic idea, it lacks context about what 'drag' means in Audacity or how to use it. The warning to inspect the command name suggests the description itself is insufficient for full understanding.

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 explicitly states 'no-argument', and the schema has no properties. This fully clarifies that there are no parameters to worry about.

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: simulate a drag for UI interactions. It is specific about the verb and the target (UI), but 'drag' alone might be ambiguous without further context. Still, it gives a clear purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus other similar raw_* commands. It does not mention any preconditions or typical scenarios. The instruction to 'inspect the command name first' is not a usage guideline.

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