mouse_drag

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only the surface action ('Drag in absolute coordinates') but leaves essential behaviors undisclosed: whether it is a press-move-release, how duration/timing is handled, button behavior (left/right/middle), potential side effects, or whether the mouse is moved with the button held. This is a significant transparency gap.

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 short and free of fluff, which is good. It gets to the core verb and mode immediately. However, its brevity sacrifices essential detail, so while there is no waste, it is under-specified rather than just concise.

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?

With 5 parameters (4 required), no annotations, and an output schema that does not compensate for missing explanation, the description is far from complete. It does not cover what 'absolute coordinates' refer to, the coordinate space, typical usage patterns, or how the drag is intended to behave. An agent cannot confidently predict the tool's effect or its return outcome.

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 explain the parameters. It only says 'absolute coordinates' but gives no indication that start_x/start_y define the drag origin and end_x/end_y the destination, nor does it describe the button parameter (left/right/other). The description adds almost no meaning beyond the parameter names themselves.

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 action ('drag') and the coordinate system ('absolute'), which distinguishes it from move/click/scroll siblings. However, it leaves the object (mouse) and the nature of the drag (button held, press/release behavior) implicit, so the purpose is only moderately clear.

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 explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., mouse_move, mouse_click). There is no mention of scenarios that favor dragging, no exclusions, and no alternative routing. The usage context is only implied by the word 'drag'.

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