chrome_drag

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

With no annotations, the burden falls entirely on the description, which only states that Chrome pointer input is used. It does not disclose whether the drag is a single event or stepwise, how steps affect behavior, whether foreground/background execution matters, or what side effects the drag may cause on the page.

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 and communicates the core operation without unnecessary words. However, for a tool with 13 parameters, this brevity borders on underspecification rather than tight structure.

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?

Given the high parameter count, zero required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is not complete enough for an agent to call the tool reliably. It omits critical context about required source/destination forms, coordinate space, background behavior, and result contract.

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 38%, and the description adds no meaning for most parameters. It mentions uid/selector/point and from/to, but does not explain how coordinates are interpreted, which parameter combinations are valid, how target selection works among targetId, urlIncludes, and titleIncludes, or why no parameters are required.

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 names the operation ('Drag') and the general parameters ('from one uid/selector/point to another'), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like click, hover, and tap. It is specific about the action and the target types, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from other tools by name.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites like an active Chrome tab, and no exclusions. The verb 'Drag' implies the intended use case, but the tool leaves the agent to infer all selection and targeting conditions.

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