mouse_drag

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

With annotations providing no destructive or idempotent hints (destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description could add behavioral context. However, it only describes the basic action and omits potential side effects like focus disruption, despite the parameter 'confirm_focus_disruption' hinting at such behavior. No disclosure of behavior when start coordinates are omitted.

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 for the purpose, followed by a standard Args/Returns structure. It wastes no words and front-loads the core action immediately.

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 an output schema and moderate complexity (multiple optional parameters, a focus-disruption consent flag), the description lacks important context: no explanation of default button, default duration, start-from-current-cursor behavior, or the requirement to set confirm_focus_disruption after user consent. These gaps reduce completeness.

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%, meaning the schema's parameter descriptions are not considered sufficient. The description adds minimal value by stating 'optional start, required end, button and duration,' which largely repeats parameter names. It does not explain the semantics of 'start_x' and 'start_y' being optional with current cursor fallback, or limitations like duration maximum.

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 'Press a mouse button at a start point and release it at an end point,' which unambiguously defines a drag operation. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like mouse_click and mouse_move by specifying the press-and-release sequence across two points.

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 implies using this tool when a drag action is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives such as mouse_click plus mouse_move, nor does it provide usage conditions or exclusions. It lacks guidance for when not to use this tool.

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