wavexis_mouse_drag_xy

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

It discloses the exact CDP events dispatched (mouseMoved, mousePressed, mouseReleased), states that page interactions may be triggered, and gives the return shape. This meaningfully supplements the annotations, which already hint at non-read-only, destructive behavior.

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?

Three short, focused segments: the operation, the alternative tool, and side effects/returns. Every sentence earns its place, and the key purpose is front-loaded.

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 drag tool with a rich input schema and explicit annotations, the description adequately covers side effects, the compatibility context, the natural-language alternative, and the response format. An agent can correctly select and invoke the tool without further inference.

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?

The description itself adds only the general 'screen coordinate' semantics. However, the nested input schema documents all parameters in detail (start/end coordinates in CSS pixels, steps range, button enum, session_id source), so the schema carries most of the parameter documentation burden.

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 and resource: 'Drag the mouse from one screen coordinate to another via CDP mouse events.' It clearly distinguishes this raw coordinate-based drag tool from higher-level alternatives and states it is for Playwright-compatible drag operations.

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 tells the agent to use wavexis_act instead for natural-language drag interactions, naming the alternative and the condition under which it should be chosen. This leaves no ambiguity about when this tool is appropriate.

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