Drag on the Linux desktop

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is mutating (readOnlyHint=false) and not idempotent. The description adds the key dependency on the latest screenshot, which is valuable. It does not describe the full drag sequence (press-move-release) or potential side effects, so some behavioral detail remains undisclosed beyond annotations.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core action and packs the essential constraint (screenshot dependency) into a concise statement. Every word contributes to understanding.

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?

The tool has five parameters and a dependency on prior screenshots, both of which are addressed. The description doesn't explain return values, but an output schema exists. Given the simplicity of the action, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand usage, though it could briefly mention the press-move-release behavior to be fully complete.

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?

The schema clearly defines parameter names, types, and bounds, but the description adds crucial meaning by specifying that coordinates are absolute and come from the latest screenshot. It does not elaborate on the button parameter, though the schema provides an enum and default. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description partially compensates but not fully.

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 uses the specific verb 'drag' and clearly identifies the resource (mouse button) and the action's scope (between two absolute coordinates from the latest screenshot). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like move_pointer (which moves without holding a button) and click (single click).

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 implies that the tool operates on coordinates from the latest screenshot, indicating a dependency on a prior screenshot. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like move_pointer or click, nor does it mention exclusions. Usage context is implied but not fully explicit.

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