Drag And Drop

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, etc. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond that: it clarifies that the drag uses real mouse events (not synthetic) and includes intermediate mousemove steps. This explains the mechanics and potential side effects, which is useful context. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured with a clear opening, an Args section, a Returns section, and an Example. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition. It is appropriately sized given the tool's complexity.

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 7 parameters, nested objects, and an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, why it exists, how to specify targets, what it returns, and a usage example. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be elaborated further, and the example return adds extra clarity.

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 description summarizes the from/to object structure and explains steps as 'intermediate mousemove steps'. It also provides an example showing how to obtain elementIds via map_elements. While the schema already covers individual parameters (71% coverage), the description adds contextual meaning about how the parameters relate to the drag gesture.

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: 'Performs a real mouse-down / move / mouse-up drag between two points or elements'. It also explains the purpose (serving drag handlers relying on genuine mousemove events), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like click, hover, and press_key.

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 gives an explicit 'Use when' example: dragging item A onto the trash icon, and even suggests a workflow with map_elements. However, it does not mention when not to use the tool or name alternative tools for different gestures, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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