drag

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

The annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false, which already signals a mutating operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the action itself: no mention of side effects, DOM changes, events triggered, or what happens after the drop. It essentially restates the tool name without disclosing the operational consequences.

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 sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is concise and easy to parse, though it is also somewhat under-specified; there is nothing redundant, but there is little beyond the bare action.

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 four-parameter interaction with no output schema, the description plus the fully described schema gives an agent enough to make a basic call. However, it does not explain the effect of includeSnapshot on the response or mention any behavioral caveats, so the context is adequate but not 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, and each property already explains its meaning: pageId, from_uid, to_uid, and includeSnapshot. The tool description adds no extra meaning about parameter relationships, constraints, or formats, so it stays at the schema baseline.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Drag an element onto another element.' It clearly identifies the core action and the two targets, which distinguishes it from sibling interaction tools like click, hover, and fill. Even without parameter details, the purpose is unmistakable.

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 drag-and-drop usage but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing, so the agent must infer applicability solely from the verb.

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