wb_drag

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and usefully discloses that it uses CDP, requires both targets visible simultaneously, and does not synthesize HTML5 DataTransfer events. It omits failure behavior, return values, and permission or timeout handling, leaving meaningful gaps for a mutation-like interaction tool.

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 tight sentences with zero filler, and the critical constraint about visibility and DataTransfer is front-loaded immediately after the purpose statement.

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?

The tool has six parameters, nested selector objects, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description covers only the core gesture concept and one limitation. It does not explain the complex source/destination selector structure, expect assertions, steps, session override, or timeout behavior, so an agent cannot confidently invoke it from this description alone.

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 17%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented nested source/destination selector objects, steps, expect, session, and timeoutMs. It merely alludes to 'two unique elements' without explaining any parameter formats or constraints, leaving most inputs 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?

States a specific verb and resource: pointer drag between two elements via CDP. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling interaction tools like wb_click, wb_hover, and wb_dblclick by specifying a drag operation and naming the underlying CDP mechanism.

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?

Implies usage context by stating both targets must be visible together and that HTML5 DataTransfer is not synthesized, which guides the agent away from HTML5 drag-and-drop scenarios. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when to use this versus other interaction tools.

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