drag_widget

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It says 'Simulates dragging,' but does not describe what 'simulates' entails—e.g., whether it triggers OS-level events, waits for animations, or handles invisible widgets. No mention of side effects, prerequisites (e.g., widgets must be visible), or error handling for invalid IDs. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like 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?

The description is extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that immediately state the purpose and provide context. Every sentence earns its place with no filler. It is front-loaded with the primary 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?

Given the low complexity (2 simple integer parameters, no nested objects, output schema exists), the description is adequate but lacks details on return value, success/failure behavior, or error handling. The description provides minimal context beyond the core functionality. It is complete for a basic understanding but not for robust use.

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 already provides descriptions for both parameters ('The widget ID to drag from' and 'The widget ID to drag to'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema states. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 what the tool does: 'Perform drag and drop between two widgets.' It uses specific verb ('Perform') and resource ('drag and drop between two widgets'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning drag-and-drop interfaces like chess boards and sortable lists, which differentiates it from click_widget or focus_widget.

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 clear context by stating it is 'Useful for drag-and-drop interfaces like chess boards, sortable lists, etc.' This implies when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the sibling tools offer implicit alternatives. No explicit exclusions or conditions are given.

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