Drag within Studio

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful operational context by saying it consumes a token and that the agent should inspect resulting edits, but it does not describe token invalidation, irreversibility, or the response 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?

The description is two tightly packed sentences with no filler, and the core drag modes are front-loaded before the token/inspection caveat. Every phrase contributes to selecting or invoking the tool.

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?

This is a destructive UI automation tool with 9 parameters, low schema description coverage, and no output schema. The description adds some necessary workflow context, but it is still too thin regarding coordinate semantics, token acquisition, mode selection, and how to inspect resulting edits.

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 9 parameters and only 11% schema description coverage, the description must carry more semantic weight. It correctly groups the parameters into endpoint/path modes and optional button/modifiers/duration, but it does not explain coordinate pairing, visibility constraints, the points path limits, or how required/optional combinations work.

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 gives a specific verb (Drag) and identifies two execution modes: visible image endpoints or a bounded path, plus optional button/modifiers/duration. This is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like studio_click or studio_hover, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

It implies use for drag gestures and notes that the call consumes a token and that resulting edits should be inspected, which gives some workflow guidance. However, it does not say when to prefer studio_drag over studio_click/studio_hover, nor when to use endpoint dragging versus a bounded path.

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