drag

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

The description discloses important behavioral traits: it scrolls the source into view and reports when no page reaction was detected. It also explains the two drag mechanisms (HTML5 vs mouse drags), which is valuable context beyond the schema. With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does a good job, though it could mention whether the operation is reversible or what side effects occur.

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 compact and information-dense. It front-loads the core action, then covers the two drag types, the scroll behavior, the no-reaction feedback, and the parameter grouping in just two sentences. Every sentence 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 tool with 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key decision points: how to specify source/target, what drag types are supported, and what feedback to expect. It doesn't explain the return value or error cases, but the absence of an output schema and the clear parameter grouping make the description largely sufficient.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 9 parameters. The description adds the grouping of source (from_ref/from_selector or from_x+from_y) and target (to_ref/to_selector or to_x+to_y), which helps an agent understand the mutually exclusive alternatives. However, it doesn't add detail beyond that grouping, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool performs drag operations, enumerates the two supported drag types (HTML5 drag-and-drop and mouse drags), and gives concrete examples of each. It also distinguishes the source and target specification methods, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (for draggable lists, sliders, canvas, resize handles) and explains the source/target specification options. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately among siblings.

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