drag_and_drop

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It doesn't state what happens after the drag (e.g., whether a drop event fires, whether the target must exist, whether the offset requires the 'to' field to be absent), and whether the 'to' and offset (dx/dy) are mutually exclusive. The agent is left uncertain about preconditions and side effects.

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 concise sentence that states the core operation. Efficient with no wasted words. Slight deduction for not front-loading the mutually exclusive pattern clearly, but structurally it's clean and short.

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 interaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is somewhat thin. It covers the basic intent but misses important usage context: which destination should be preferred (offset vs. target string), when each makes sense, and whether this tool waits for the drag animation to complete. The schema documents all parameters, but the operational context is incomplete.

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 100%, so each parameter already has a doc line. The description adds context that either 'to' or an offset (dx/dy) can be the destination, but it doesn't clarify whether 'to' and dx/dy are mutually exclusive, nor the semantics of duration_ms beyond 'duration of the drag animation.' Given full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 (drags), the resource (source widget to target widget or offset), which distinguishes it from siblings like tap, scroll, and enter_text. It conveys a specific action that isn't ambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly clarify the relationship to the offset alternative beyond naming it, which is minor given the clear action framing.

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?

No guidance on when to use drag_and_drop versus alternatives. Among siblings there are tap, scroll, scroll_until_visible, and enter_text, but no exclusions or comparisons are given. The description doesn't mention common drag scenarios (e.g., reordering lists, moving elements) that would help the agent decide to select this tool.

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