GNOME Desktop MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Drag from one position to another' implies mouse movement with button pressed, but doesn't specify which button defaults to left-click (button=1), whether it automatically handles button down/up events, what happens if coordinates are out of bounds, or any performance/rate limit considerations. For a mouse manipulation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise at just 6 words, front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place - 'Drag' specifies the action, 'from one position to another' defines the scope. There's zero redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given that there's an output schema (which presumably handles return values), the description's job is reduced. However, for a mouse manipulation tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no annotations, the description should provide more context about coordinate systems, button behavior, and interaction patterns. It's minimally adequate but leaves the agent guessing about important implementation details.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. The description mentions 'from one position to another' which implies two coordinate pairs (x1,y1 and x2,y2), but doesn't explain the coordinate system, units, origin point, or what the 'button' parameter controls. With 5 parameters completely undocumented in schema descriptions, the description adds minimal semantic value beyond what's obvious from parameter names.

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 'Drag from one position to another' clearly states the action (drag) and resource (mouse cursor), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like mouse_click, mouse_move, and mouse_up/down by specifying a dragging motion between two points rather than single-point actions or button states.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose mouse_drag over mouse_move+mouse_down/up combinations, or when it might be preferable to other mouse manipulation tools. There's no context about prerequisites, timing, or integration with other tools.

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