filmora_drag

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context, namely that pixels must be fresh (a staleness constraint on observation_id) and that Alt-drag has a media-replacing side effect, but it omits permissions, what state is mutated on a plain drag, and how drag completion/settling is handled.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, leading with the action and targets before the optional modifier behavior. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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 7-parameter, destructive, coordinate-based tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description leaves major gaps: coordinate origin/units, what happens after the drag, and the meaning of duration and modifiers values. It is not adequate to invoke the tool reliably without inspecting additional sibling tools.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must carry the load and largely does not. Only 'Alt-drag' loosely maps to the modifiers parameter and 'fresh screenshot pixels' hints at observation_id; start_x/start_y/end_x/end_y coordinate space, duration semantics, and expected modifier string values are unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb ('drag') with concrete drag targets (clips, assets, trim handles, keyframes), which is more precise than the generic siblings filmora_click/filmora_ui_action. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from filmora_ui_action, which could plausibly also perform a drag, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Using fresh screenshot pixels' implies the precondition that the observation_id must come from a recent filmora_screenshot, and 'Alt-drag can replace media' gives a modifier-level usage rule. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this drag over filmora_ui_action or filmora_click, so usage remains inferred rather than stated.

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