drag

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one useful trait – that it dispatches HTML5 drag events (dragstart/dragover/drop) rather than raw mouse movement – but says nothing about whether it waits for the drop to complete, what happens on a failed drop, error/silent-failure behavior, or return values.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification for a tool with nested object parameters.

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 nested object params, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves too much unsaid: nothing on how targets are addressed, whether the drag is awaited, or what a caller sees on failure. Only the HTML5 event detail fills part of the gap.

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 only 50%, covering tab and request_timeout but leaving the two required params (from/to) and their nested ref/selector fields undocumented. The description adds nothing about these parameters or how ref and selector differ, so the most important inputs remain ambiguous.

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) and resource (one element onto another), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from siblings like click, hover, or scroll. The parenthetical '(HTML5 drag events)' sharpens what kind of drag is meant, though it never contrasts with the other interaction tools by name.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus click/hover, no prerequisites (e.g. that elements must be draggable), and no note on what to do if the drag fails. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the tool name.

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