Drag-Tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It is transparent about the gesture shape ('Drag from (x1,y1) to (x2,y2)') and the fixed duration (500ms), which are the key behavioral traits for this tool. It does not specify coordinate-space assumptions, but for a straightforward UI gesture this is a minor omission rather than a serious gap.

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 exactly two short sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence front-loads the action and duration, and the second lists the practical use cases. Every word earns its place.

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?

The core action, duration, and use cases are present, and the parameter roles are derivable from the 'from/to' phrasing. However, it lacks coordinate-space or unit information, does not mention any preconditions or side effects, and does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling Swipe-Tool. These gaps leave the description slightly incomplete, though not unusable.

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 add meaning to the four integer parameters, and it does: 'from (x1,y1) to (x2,y2)' maps x1/y1 to the start point and x2/y2 to the end point. This relational meaning is valuable beyond the bare schema titles. It does not state units or coordinate space, but all four parameter roles are clarified.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Drag') and a precise resource/coordinate range ('from (x1,y1) to (x2,y2)'), making the core action immediately clear. It also provides concrete use cases such as reordering, moving items, and adjusting sliders. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like Swipe-Tool, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 explicitly states the intended use cases: reordering, moving items, or adjusting sliders. This gives the agent clear context for when to select this tool. It does not name alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, but the context is clear enough to avoid confusion with click or typing tools.

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