page_drag

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It reveals the movement sequence—approach, press, bezier drag with ease-in-out velocity, micro-pauses, settle, release—and clarifies that refs come from page_a11y. This adds significant behavioral context beyond the raw schema.

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 compact and well-structured: movement profile first, then the two invocation modes, then the ref source. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant restatement of schema fields.

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 6-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this covers the essential invocation paths, parameter semantics, and behavioral expectations. It lacks an explicit note about return values or what happens if both to_ref and offset are provided, but the 'or' phrasing makes exclusivity reasonably inferable.

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 enriches schema parameters by showing how from_ref, to_ref, offset_x, and offset_y combine into mutually exclusive modes. It also adds real-world context for offsets (slider captchas, resize handles) and states the ref source. However, session_id and page_id remain undocumented in both schema and description, keeping this from a perfect score.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Drag') and details a distinct human-like movement profile. It also clearly separates the two main use cases: element-to-element drag and pixel-based drag, making it distinguishable from sibling tools like page_move_to and page_press.

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 explicit mode guidance: use from_ref + to_ref for element-to-element dragging, or from_ref + offset_x/offset_y for pixel-based dragging such as slider captchas and resize handles. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the intended conditions are clear.

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