mouse_drag

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals the sequence (press, drag, release) and the smoothing behavior, but lacks details such as whether it uses absolute screen coordinates, how it interacts with the page (e.g., synthetic events vs. physical mouse), or whether it blocks until complete. This is a minimal disclosure for a tool that could have 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action. It avoids redundancy and wasted words, effectively conveying the tool's purpose in a compact form.

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?

Despite having a well-described schema, the description is too brief to fully inform an agent in the absence of annotations and output schema. It does not explain return values, coordinate system, or any prerequisites (e.g., page must be loaded). For a tool with 5 parameters and no structured safety info, the description leaves too much unspecified.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context by connecting the coordinates ('from one point to another') and implying the duration parameter ('smoothly'), but it does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It reinforces the relationship rather than introducing new semantics.

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 tool's function: 'Press, drag smoothly from one point to another, release.' It identifies the specific action (drag) and the parameters (start and end points), distinguishing it from siblings like mouse_move (movement without pressing) and mouse_click (click without dragging).

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 usage: it's for dragging between two points with a smooth motion. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use mouse_move instead for repositioning without pressing.' The context of dragging is clear, but there is no direct guidance on when not to use it.

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