wavexis_drag

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as side effects (element moved/copied), browser requirements, or error conditions. It is adequate but not improved beyond annotations.

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 concise with one introductory sentence plus a brief args/returns structure. It is front-loaded and to the point, but could be more structured (e.g., bulletized parameters) without losing brevity.

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 complexity (7 parameters, destructive annotation, output schema exists), the description covers only the basic action. It does not explain prerequisites, return details beyond 'status ok', or edge cases. Since an output schema exists, the return omission is acceptable, but the lack of parameter context reduces completeness.

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 compensate. It only mentions 'Drag parameters (source, target),' but the actual input object has 7 fields including url, backend, headless, session_id, wait_timeout. It does not explain these, nor clarify that source and target are required CSS selectors. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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: 'Drag an element from source selector to target selector.' This is a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from sibling tools like wavexis_click or wavexis_hover, which involve different interactions.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where dragging is appropriate or contrast with click/hover. The agent is left without context for selection.

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