Drag

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

With no annotations, the description does carry the core behavior: a left-button press, intermediate motion, and release, plus a platform limitation. It omits the mutation side effects an agent would want to know — whether the button is released on error, how long the drag takes, what return value or exception to expect, and how 'steps' affects timing/smoothness.

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 with no filler: the action sequence first, then the platform constraint. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, and 7 parameters with 14% schema coverage leave real gaps — window_id semantics, coordinate frame, and failure behavior are all undocumented. For a mutating input-injection tool this leaves the agent guessing on call correctness.

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 only 14% (just 'id'), so the description must compensate, and it partly does by naming 'from' and 'to' and alluding to 'steps'. But window_id is never mentioned, the coordinate space (screen vs. window-relative) is unstated, and 'steps' is left as 'moves to to in steps' without saying whether it is intermediate motion events or a smoothness knob.

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 gives a concrete verb sequence (press left button at 'from', move to 'to', release) that fully specifies the drag gesture. This implicitly but clearly separates it from siblings like pointer_move and click, which never hold a pressed button.

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?

It states a hard applicability constraint up front: X11/Xwayland targets only, with the reason (the virtual pointer protocol cannot hold a button). However, it names no fallback or alternative for native Wayland sessions, so an agent working there is left without a next step.

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