ghost_drag

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the sequence (click-hold, move, release) and the important semantic detail that elements are resolved to their center. It does not cover coordinate system, duration, or failure behavior, but the core mechanics are transparent.

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 a single focused sentence that front-loads the gesture, immediately explains the two endpoint modes, and provides illustrative examples. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 8 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics: what qualifies as an endpoint and how element endpoints are resolved. Minor gaps remain, such as coordinate space and whether start/end must both be present, but the examples and mode explanation make the tool usable.

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 only 50%, so the description adds meaningful context by explaining that endpoints can be either raw coordinates (from_x/from_y, to_x/to_y) or elements (from_name/from_role, to_name/to_role) resolved to center. This clarifies how the eight optional parameters group together, though it does not specify units or required combinations.

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 names a specific action (click-hold, move, release = drag) and clearly identifies the resource (start and end points). It distinguishes this from siblings like ghost_tab_click or ghost_tab_scroll by describing the drag gesture and giving concrete examples.

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 tool's usage context is clear: use it when an interaction requires dragging between two endpoints. It provides examples such as dragging a list row onto another or a slider handle. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, but the behavior is distinct enough that the guidance is sufficient.

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