da_drag

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a critical behavioral trait: non-left buttons are accepted but ignored. This is genuinely useful transparency about a subtle gotcha. However, it doesn't mention whether dragging involves holding the button down and releasing, potential timing/duration behavior, or whether this is a press-drag-release operation.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The critical button gotcha is included efficiently. Could arguably be one sentence but is appropriately concise and front-loaded with the main action.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is thin on behavioral details like drag duration, button hold behavior, and coordinate reference frame. The button caveat is a strong addition, but the lack of context about how the drag executes (speed, press-and-hold, release) leaves meaningful gaps for an agent deciding how to use it.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all 5 parameters. It explains the button parameter partially (defaults to left, non-left ignored) but provides no meaning for x1, y1, x2, y2 beyond what's implied by 'drag from/to' — coordinates, units, or screen-relative vs absolute positioning aren't specified. The button gotcha is helpful but the coordinate parameters are largely unexplained.

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 verb (drag) and resource (coordinates x1,y1 to x2,y2). It's a specific action that distinguishes itself from siblings like da_click or da_move_mouse, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is clear and actionable.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is for drag-and-drop interactions, or contrast it with move_mouse (which moves without clicking) or click. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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