Drag with the mouse

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

Annotations already declare destructive/non-idempotent/open-world, but the description adds genuinely new context: the motion is a curved human-like path, and high-risk semantic intent triggers an explicit user prompt, which tells the agent a confirmation gate exists and can block the call. It does not clarify what the drag might destroy or what a denial returns.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the mandatory-parameter constraint immediately after it.

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 7-parameter, destructive, open-world input tool with an output schema, the description covers intent gating and motion style but omits how the button choice affects behavior, what target_description is for, and what happens after a prompt is denied.

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 57%, so the schema documents the coordinates but leaves `button` and `target_description` bare. The description adds real meaning only for `intent` (mandatory, risk-evaluated), leaving two parameters undocumented in both places.

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?

States a specific verb (drag) and the resource/scope (from one point to another) plus a distinctive behavioral trait (human-like curved path). It is distinguishishable from mouse_move and mouse_click by virtue of the press-and-release drag semantic, though it never names those siblings explicitly to draw the contrast.

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 guidance on when to use drag versus the obvious alternatives (mouse_move + mouse_click, or mouse_scroll for wheel-based dragging). The only conditional statement is the high-risk-intent prompt, which is behavioral, not usage routing.

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