left_click_drag

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — it doesn't mention a confirmation step (though a confirmation_token param exists) or how the drag interacts with the target app. It merely restates two parameter names.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a compatibility alias, though the phrase 'using start_coordinate and coordinate' is largely redundant with the schema.

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 destructive, non-idempotent input tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the schema carries most of the burden. The description is minimal but adequate to identify the tool; it omits any note on the confirmation_token high-risk flow, which would have added real value.

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 start_coordinate, coordinate, coordinate_space, and duration are already fully documented in the schema. The description names two parameters but adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb+resource — a drag operation — and names the sibling it duplicates ('alias for drag'), which helps an agent tell it apart from 'drag'. However, calling it a 'compatibility alias' rather than describing the drag itself makes the purpose slightly indirect.

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?

It implies this exists for backward compatibility but never states when to use it versus the 'drag' sibling or 'left_click'. No prerequisites or selection conditions are given, leaving the agent to infer whether to prefer the canonical 'drag'.

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