Drag Element to Structured Destination

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true (mutation) and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds 'failure-safe drag', implying error handling during the drag, but does not elaborate on specific behaviors like retries or rollbacks. More details on what makes it 'failure-safe' would improve transparency.

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 immediately states the primary function. It is well-front-loaded with the core action and then provides supplementary details about supported selectors and alternatives, adding no extraneous 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?

Given the tool's complexity with nested destination types and many optional fields, the description covers the overall flow but omits details about the three destination schemas, button selection, and profile. The presence of an output schema explains return values, but the description could be more complete for a complex tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides high-level meaning for parameters: it mentions source element, destination types (element, offset, track-ratio), and selector support. However, it does not explain specific fields like anchor, offset_x/y, button, or profile. The schema itself contains inline descriptions for some fields, partially compensating.

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 resolves a source element and a structured destination for a failure-safe drag. It specifies supported selector types (CSS/XPath), scope (top document or same-origin iframe), and shadow DOM support. It also distinguishes from coordinate drag, making the purpose specific and distinct from potential alternatives.

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 implicitly guides usage by contrasting with coordinate drag ('use coordinate drag for visual-only targets'), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over other pointer actions like element_click or element_hover. The sibling tool list lacks a direct drag alternative, so differentiation is minimally needed.

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