Pointer gesture

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=true and idempotent=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond annotations — that gestures act through the current tool and use page coordinates — but it never explains what can be destroyed (clicks firing irreversible UI actions) or that repeated calls are not idempotent, leaving a gap for a destructive 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 the gesture kinds and the coordinate semantics front-loaded. It avoids padding, though the kind enumeration duplicates the enum and slightly dilutes the front-loaded content.

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 an 11-parameter, destructive interaction tool with no output schema, the description is thin: it omits modifier-key semantics, steps/pressure meaning, the tool parameter's effect, and any note on what the call returns or whether coordinates are absolute or viewport-relative beyond 'page coordinates'.

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 0% across 11 parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It clarifies x/y as page coordinates and `to` as the drag target, which is genuinely additive, but leaves alt, cmd, shift, steps, pressure, pressureTo and tool entirely unexplained; many of these (application-defined tool) are not self-evident.

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 concrete action (mouse gesture) and enumerates the seven gesture kinds, which lets an agent distinguish this from keyboard siblings like key and type_text. However, the kind list largely restates the schema enum rather than sharpening the purpose, and it never names the sibling that handles pointer interaction alone.

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 phrase 'with the current tool' hints that behavior depends on prior tool state, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to guidance and no alternatives named (e.g., 'use key/type_text for keyboard input'). No prerequisites such as needing a selected tool or active canvas are stated.

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