drag

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

Annotations already mark the tool destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing that the drag executes immediately, without confirmation, and that a wrong target can change page state. This goes beyond the annotation flags without contradicting them.

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 short sentences with no filler. The main action is stated first and the immediate no-confirmation behavior follows, so every sentence earns its place.

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 two-param destructive tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential invocation detail and the key risk. It is complete enough for an agent to call correctly; omitted details like selector format are not severe enough to lower it further.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description supplies the core relationship: source_selector identifies the element being dragged and target_selector identifies the drop destination. However, it does not specify selector syntax, constraints, or behavior for invalid selectors, leaving the schema titles to carry part of the semantic load.

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 the element at source_selector onto target_selector.' This unambiguously defines the operation and separates it from sibling navigation, form, and browsing tools, none of which perform drag-and-drop.

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 use case is implied by the action name and description, but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer drag over other interaction tools or mention any prerequisites. The warning about page state is risk guidance, not usage-selection guidance.

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