send_mouse_drag

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

The annotations provide no positive safety hints (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint are all false), so the description carries the burden. It adds behavioral context by breaking down the gesture into 'press, move, release' and noting the 'Requires run_interactive' dependency. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, coordinate system, or whether the operation blocks, leaving behavioral ambiguity.

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 two sentences with no redundancy. It packs the action, a recommended alternative, and a prerequisite into a minimal, front-loaded format. Every element 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?

Given the full schema coverage and simple operation, the description is sufficient for correct invocation. It names the operation, alternative, and requirement. Lacking coordination or side-effect details, but these are not critical for a mouse drag tool with a complete schema, and no output schema exists to explain.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description's phrase 'from one position to another' reinforces the from/to coordinates but does not add meaning beyond the schema for steps or button. 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's function: 'Send a mouse drag (press, move, release) from one position to another.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly distinguishes from send_mouse_click, a sibling tool, making the 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 explicit usage guidance by naming an alternative: 'For simple clicks, use send_mouse_click.' It also states a prerequisite, 'Requires run_interactive,' which helps the agent determine when this tool is appropriate.

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