desktop_drag

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

Annotations already establish this is a non-read-only but non-destructive, non-open-world operation, so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral context: the left button is pressed, motion is smooth, and multi-point paths plus continuation of a previous drag are supported. It omits timing (duration_ms), activation/verification behavior, and whether the button is released at the end.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that opens with the action and then enumerates the coordinate alternatives; no filler. It is dense but readable, and the parenthetical parameter names aid scanning.

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 13-parameter input-coordinate mutation tool with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the definition leaves too much unanswered: timing bounds, waiving activation, content verification, and the interaction between coordinate modes are all unstated. An agent could call it, but only by guessing at nearly half the parameters.

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 carry parameter meaning, and it only echoes the names of 7 of 13 parameters without explaining formats or interactions. Material parameters such as modifiers, duration_ms, from_frame, allow_activate, allow_windows, and verify_content get no explanation anywhere, leaving half the surface undocumented.

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 action (press left button and drag) plus the exact coordinate modes it accepts, which is far more informative than the bare name. It is clearly distinct from click/scroll siblings by the drag verb, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 sentence implicitly documents three alternative invocation shapes (from/to coordinates, a multi-point `path`, or continuing a prior drag via `from_last`/`continue_from`), which is useful selection guidance. However it never says when to drag versus using desktop_click or desktop_scroll, nor any prerequisite or exclusion.

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