physics_draggable

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only notes that inertia requires ThrowPropsPlugin, but fails to explain other key behaviors like how bounds work, what happens on drag, or return values. The schema provides some parameter details, but the description adds minimal behavioral context.

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 at one sentence, which is positive for conciseness, but it is under-specified and lacks necessary structure. It front-loads the core function but omits crucial details, making it insufficient for agent understanding.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, physics-based drag interaction), the description is severely incomplete. No output schema is provided, and the description does not cover return values, error conditions, or usage examples. The brief text leaves the agent with inadequate context to use the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 80% (4 of 5 parameters have descriptions), but the description itself does not add any meaning beyond the schema. For example, the 'type' parameter lacks a description in the schema, and the description does not clarify its purpose. The description fails to compensate for missing parameter documentation.

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 'Drag interaction animation' identifies the tool's core function of enabling draggable interactions, but it is vague and does not distinguish it from sibling physics-related tools like 'physics_2d_simulation' or 'create_interactive_animation'. The mention of inertia and ThrowPropsPlugin adds specificity, but overall purpose is not sharply defined.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternative animation or physics tools, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., GSAP Draggable plugin) or typical scenarios.

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