drag

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read or write operation, what visual feedback occurs, whether it requires specific page states, what errors might occur, or any performance characteristics. The agent must infer everything from the parameter names alone.

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?

While technically concise with just three words, this is under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description fails to provide any meaningful information that would help an agent understand or use the tool correctly, making it inefficient despite its short length.

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 complex 8-parameter UI interaction tool with no annotations, no output schema, and rich sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no information about what the tool does, how to use it, what parameters mean, what behavior to expect, or what results might be returned.

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?

With 8 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description provides zero information about what any parameter means or how they interact. Critical parameters like 'selector', 'fromCoordinates', 'toCoordinates', 'offsetX/Y', 'duration', 'steps', and 'tabId' are completely unexplained, leaving the agent to guess their purposes and relationships.

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 'Perform drag operation' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'drag' without specifying what resource is being dragged or in what context. It doesn't distinguish this tool from other UI interaction siblings like 'click' or 'send_key', leaving the agent to guess what exactly gets dragged and where.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 28 sibling tools including various UI interactions like 'click', 'type_text', and 'send_key', the description offers no context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or when other tools might be more suitable for different interaction needs.

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