ruyi_human_drag

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals the internal sequence (move→hold→wait→human_move→wait→release) and the version-specific behavior of ruyiPage 1.2.54 merging press-to-release into a single performActions call, plus the flexibility of source/target as selectors or viewport coordinates. It doesn't cover failure handling or return values, but the core behavioral traits are well disclosed.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main action and then adding technical and usage context. Every sentence contributes value—sequence, merge behavior, and input options—with no wasted words or redundancy.

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 a 10-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and use cases but omits important parameter semantics like style (e.g., arc vs linear) and algorithm (bezier vs windmouse). It also doesn't mention page selection or return behavior, leaving the tool underspecified for more advanced use.

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 around 70%, with several parameters (button, holdMs, releaseMs) already documented. The description adds the key insight that source/target can be either element selectors or viewport coordinates, clarifying the two representation options. However, it doesn't explain the meaning of style, algorithm, or pageIdx, leaving important parameter semantics unexplained.

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 defines an atomic human-like mouse drag operation with a specific sequence (move→hold→wait→human_move→wait→release), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ruyi_human_click and ruyi_human_move. It also explicitly mentions applicable scenarios (sliders, sorting, drag-and-drop), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's 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?

The description states it is suitable for sliders, sorting, and drag-and-drop scenarios, providing clear usage context. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative tools like ruyi_human_move for simpler pointer operations, so it falls short of the fullest guidance.

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