vroid_drag

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds key details: the glide is 24 interpolated steps to register a drag rather than a click, and the kinds of operations it performs (slider, camera orbit, pan). While it doesn't discuss failure modes or side effects, it covers the essential behavioral traits an agent would need to know before calling.

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 two short paragraphs: the first delivers the primary purpose in a compact phrase, and the second adds usage guidance and a behavioral detail. Every sentence earns its place, and the key scoping information is front-loaded.

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 description gives enough context for correct invocation: it names target resources, the condition for using it, and the interpolation detail. An output schema exists, so return values are covered. It stops short of describing error handling or coordinate system conversion, but for a drag tool that's acceptable given the schema richness.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for x1, y1, x2, y2, space, and button, including enums and defaults. The description does not add parameter-specific explanation beyond what the schema offers, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb (press, glide, release) and the specific resources it acts on (slider handles, 3D camera, hair guides), and it distinguishes itself from sibling vroid_set_slider by noting dragging is only for controls without a numeric box. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool versus vroid_set_slider, with a concrete rule: 'prefer vroid_set_slider for parameters sliders' and 'dragging is only for controls that have no numeric box.' It also mentions camera and hair guides, giving clear contexts for alternative use. No inference is needed.

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