drag_and_drop

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'drag from one element to another' and does not reveal whether this simulates mouse events, dispatchs HTML5 drag/drop events, waits for animations, or has any side effects or failure modes.

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 short sentence with no filler words. The action is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter tool with fully documented schema, this is a minimum viable description. It is missing behavioral depth and usage guidance, but an agent familiar with drag-and-drop semantics can infer the basic call. It does not explain when to choose this over siblings or what event behavior to expect.

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 input schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, so the descrioption does not need to compensate for missing schema information. It adds no extra meaning beyond the fact that the action moves between two elements, which is the baseline expected when schema is complete.

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 states a specific verb ('Drag') and the resources involved ('from one element to another'), which maps cleanly to source_ref and target_ref. It distinguishes the tool from sibling click/hover actions by the drag semantics, though it does not explicitly mention any sibling or edge case.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hover, click, mouse_move, or mouse_click_xy. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or timing considerations, so an agent gets no help choosing this over the many sibling input-simulation tools.

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