click_and_drag

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'click and drag' without explaining the simulation mechanics (e.g., mousedown, mousemove, mouseup), whether the action is continuous or discrete, or how coordinate systems work. The durationMs parameter hints at timing but is not described. This is insufficient for a complex action.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the primary action, and the second adds concrete usage examples. Every phrase earns its place.

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 tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is far too brief. It does not explain coordinate systems, return values, error conditions, or behavior when element IDs are omitted. The description is incomplete for an agent to correctly invoke this tool.

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 22% (only endElementId and startElementId have descriptions). The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning at all. It does not explain what startX/startY/endX/endY represent (pixels, relative to what?), the unit of durationMs, or the effect of modifierKeys. Despite the low coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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 the verb 'click and drag' and the resource 'from one position to another'. It also lists three use cases: resizing, reordering, or moving elements. While it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'click_element' or 'advanced_click', the action is unique enough that the purpose is 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?

The description provides some usage context by listing example use cases (resizing, reordering, moving elements). However, it does not give explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or point to alternatives among the many sibling tools. The implied usage is adequate but lacks exclusionary criteria.

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