remote_macos_mouse_drag_n_drop

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks critical behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if coordinates are out of bounds, whether it's synchronous/asynchronous, or error conditions. The mention of 'automatic coordinate scaling' is helpful but insufficient for a mutation tool.

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?

Single sentence efficiently conveys core functionality without redundancy. Every word earns its place by specifying the operation, target environment, and key technical feature.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after the drag operation, what success/failure looks like, or important behavioral constraints. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool safely and effectively.

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 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'automatic coordinate scaling' which relates to source_width/source_height parameters, but doesn't provide additional context about how scaling works or parameter interactions.

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 specific action ('Perform a mouse drag operation'), target resource ('on a remote MacOs machine'), and key capability ('with automatic coordinate scaling'). It distinguishes from siblings like mouse_click and mouse_move by specifying drag-and-drop functionality.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing remote connection established), nor does it differentiate from similar tools like mouse_move or when drag-and-drop is appropriate versus separate click operations.

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