Drag Mouse

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the success/error return shape and gives a concrete call example, but says nothing about which mouse button is used, drag duration/step count, modifier keys, coordinate origin, or whether the call blocks — all relevant behavioral traits for a drag operation.

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?

Front-loaded core sentence followed by compact Args and a single illustrative example; little waste. The Returns block is somewhat redundant since an output schema exists, but it does not bloat the text significantly.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return-value explanation is not strictly needed. Given a 4-parameter, all-required input with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate but omits coordinate semantics and interaction behavior an agent would want.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does label x1,y1 as the start position and x2,y2 as the end position. However, it adds no detail on units, coordinate system origin, screen bounds, or ordering constraints, leaving the semantics thin for an all-required 4-integer API.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Perform drag operation between coordinates') and the example reinforces it as a mouse drag from (x1,y1) to (x2,y2). This clearly separates it from siblings like move_mouse or click_mouse, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this over move_mouse or click_mouse, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions. The example shows syntax but not selection criteria, so an agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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