Drag

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates state. The description adds the same-observation scoping constraint but says nothing about reversibility, whether a drag triggers intermediate hover events, or what the side effects are beyond what annotations cover.

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 that names the action, both endpoints, and the scope constraint with zero filler.

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?

With a full output schema and fully documented parameters, the description only needs to frame the action and its scope, which it does. A note on drag side effects or timing would make it fully complete for a destructive gesture tool.

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 coverage is 100% and the nested TargetIn descriptions already explain ref, mark, point, and the 'exactly one of' rule. The description only echoes the accepted forms, adding no format or precedence guidance (e.g., which of ref/mark/point to prefer) beyond the schema.

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 names the source/target forms (ref/mark/point), which clearly separates it from siblings like click or scroll. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, so it falls short of the 5-level sibling differentiation.

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 phrase 'in the same observation' implies a constraint (no cross-observation drags) but never states when to prefer drag over click/scroll or what preconditions apply. Usage is only implied, not spelled out.

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