left_click_drag

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Drag from one target to another' without explaining the sequence (press, move, release), how modifiers affect behavior, or any side effects. The same-app constraint is a behavioral limitation but not a disclosure of the action's mechanics. This is a significant gap for a mutating input tool.

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 extremely concise (one sentence) and front-loads the action. However, it is under-specified for the tool's complexity. While it is not bloated, the brevity fails to cover essential details, making it structurally sparse rather than well-organized. It earns a middle score for conciseness but not for completeness.

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 tool has nested object parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain the target types, the coordinate system, the role of state_id, or how modifiers are used. An agent would struggle to call this correctly without additional context from examples or docs.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining what from_target and to_target are. It merely uses the word 'target' without defining the object structure, coordinate formats, or how modifiers are applied. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema, leaving the agent without guidance on how to fill these parameters.

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 action (Drag) and the resource (from one target to another). It distinguishes from sibling tools like left_click and double_click by specifying a drag operation. The constraint that both endpoints must resolve to the same app adds specificity. However, it does not elaborate on what 'target' means beyond the schema, and it could be confused with mouse_down/up combinations, though the name clarifies.

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 one constraint (same app) but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like left_mouse_down/up or scroll. There is no mention of typical scenarios or exclusions. The 'same app' note is helpful but insufficient as usage guidance.

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