drag

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the low-level mechanism (native CDP mouse events), the interaction types it can drive, and its exclusions. It stops short of describing side effects like cursor movement or whether the action waits for animations to settle, but it is substantially transparent for a drag operation.

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 but information-dense. The first sentence states the purpose and supported drag types; the second states exclusions and source/target options. Every clause adds value, though the long list of excluded frameworks is slightly verbose. Still, it is well front-loaded and efficient.

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 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential guidance: what it does, what it cannot do, and how to specify source and target. The 'steps' parameter is already documented in the schema. The only minor gap is that it does not mention what happens after the drag completes (e.g., waiting for resulting state), but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

All 9 parameters have schema descriptions, so the schema already provides individual meaning. The description adds valuable higher-level semantics by grouping source parameters as 'from_ref/from_selector or from_x+from_y' and target parameters similarly, clarifying exclusive pairings that the schema alone does not express. This meaningfully helps an agent construct valid parameter 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Drag via native CDP mouse events.' It then enumerates concrete use cases (slider thumbs, resize handles, text selection, mouse-based reorder lists) and explicitly distinguishes itself from the HTML5 Drag&Drop API. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and clearly separates it from sibling input tools like click, type, and scroll.

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 explicitly states when NOT to use this tool ('NOT for the HTML5 Drag&Drop API') and names the alternative mechanism ('that needs Input.dispatchDragEvent'). It also lists the scenarios it DOES support, giving clear conditions for selection. No inference is required to decide whether this tool fits a given drag task.

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