Perform a click-and-drag operation between two screen coordinates on Windows, selecting left, right, or middle mouse button and movement speed.
Windows AutoIt mouseClickDrag. Requires a trusted owner and an interactive Windows x64 desktop.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x1 | Yes | X coordinate | |
| x2 | Yes | X coordinate | |
| y1 | Yes | Y coordinate | |
| y2 | Yes | Y coordinate | |
| speed | No | Mouse movement speed (1-100) | |
| button | No | Mouse button | left |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine extra context by naming the required trusted owner and interactive Windows x64 desktop, which is useful for a tool that drives real input. It does not, however, disclose what a drag can affect (selection/move operations) or any timing/rate behavior.
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?
It is short and front-loaded in structure, but the first sentence is redundant with the tool name rather than informative, so the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision.
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 a destructive, side-effecting input-simulation tool with no output schema, the description is thin: it omits drag mechanics, coordinate origin, and what the operation manipulates. The environment prerequisite is useful but insufficient to fully guide correct invocation.
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 100%, so x1/y1/x2/y2, speed, and the button enum are all documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about coordinate space (screen vs window) or speed semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 essentially restates the tool name ('mouseClickDrag') and prefixes it with the platform, without explaining what a click-drag actually does (press at x1,y1, move to x2,y2, release). An agent gains no verb+resource explanation beyond what the identifier already implies, and no differentiation from mouseMove/mouseClick/mouseDown/mouseUp.
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?
No when-to-use guidance is given. It never states that this should be preferred over composing mouseDown + mouseMove + mouseUp, nor any condition (e.g., drag-and-drop) that selects this tool over siblings. The only content is an environment precondition, which is not usage routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.