computer.drag

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

With no annotations present, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only names the action and input types; it does not explain whether the drag presses and releases a mouse button, whether coordinates are absolute or relative, 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 a single focused sentence with no filler or redundant wording. The core action and target types are front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

This is a physical computer-action tool with no annotations and no output schema, and the description is too minimal to support confident invocation. It omits the drag behavior details, duration semantics, coordinate format, and any notion of return value or success feedback.

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 phrase 'text, element ids or coordinates' adds meaning to start and end by mapping them to the schema's string/object union. However, the optional duration_s parameter is completely undocumented in the description, leaving its semantics to be inferred from its name.

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 action ('Drag from one target to another') and enumerates the accepted target types ('text, element ids or coordinates'), making it clearly distinct from sibling tools like click or move_mouse. It is concise and unambiguous about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast it with siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of exclusions or prerequisites. The tool name and sibling list imply it is for drag-and-drop, but the description does not help an agent decide between this and similar pointer actions.

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