drag

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal the key behavior: this is a longer-duration swipe intended to avoid being treated as a flick. However, it omits important behavioral details such as coordinate system/units, whether the gesture blocks until completion, and the role of the optional serial parameter.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the operation and coordinates, then adds the behavioral rationale and a helpful example. Every part earns its place, and the parenthetical use case improves selectability without bloating the text.

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 presence of an output schema and the relative simplicity of a drag gesture, the description provides the core invocation context: what the tool does, how it differs from a flick, and a typical use case. It is not fully complete because it does not specify coordinate space or explicitly explain the serial parameter, but the essential information is present.

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 for missing parameter documentation. It maps x1, y1, x2, and y2 as the from/to coordinates and hints at the duration concept with 'longer duration swipe.' Yet it does not explain the serial parameter, and duration units are only recoverable from the schema's property name and default value, not from the description.

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 specifies a drag gesture from (x1,y1) to (x2,y2) and explains that it should be a longer-duration swipe so the UI perceives it as a drag rather than a quick flick. It gives a concrete example (list item reordering), which aids selection. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling tool as the alternative, only the generic swipe/flick contrast.

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 communicates when to use this tool: when the UI needs to recognize a drag and not just a fast flick, such as reordering list items. This is clear contextual guidance, but it does not explicitly state exclusions or directly recommend a specific sibling tool for quick flicks, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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