sleeper_drag

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden but discloses almost nothing: no indication of what kind of drag is performed (HTML5 drag-and-drop vs. mouse move), whether intermediate hover steps occur, or what happens on failure. Only the bare mutation intent is conveyed.

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 four-word phrasing is front-loaded and free of filler, but its extreme brevity on a 4-parameter browser-automation tool reads as under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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 parameterized browser-automation mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and under-documented params, the description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke it confidently. It omits selector semantics, tab/profile targeting context, and any note on success behavior.

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 only 25% (just 'profile' is documented), so the description must compensate for 'source', 'target', and 'tab'. It hints at the source→target relationship but gives no format or resolution rules for the selector-like values, leaving the key required params under-specified 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?

The description states a concrete verb ('drag') and a two-endpoint resource ('source' to 'target'), so the core action is identifiable. However, it never clarifies what source/target denote (CSS selectors, text, element refs) and does not differentiate itself from click/hover/dblclick siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use drag versus alternatives such as sleeper_dblclick, sleeper_click, or sleeper_hover, and no preconditions (element visibility, awaiting load) are stated. Usage can only be inferred from the tool name.

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