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 of explaining behavior. It only says 'drag' and lists use cases; it omits critical details such as whether this performs a press-hold-move-release sequence, which mouse button is used, coordinate system conventions, and potential side effects. This is a meaningful transparency gap for an input-injection 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 two short sentences with no redundancy. The core operation is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds valuable use-case context. Every word 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?

Even with full parameter schema coverage, a GUI automation agent would still need to know coordinate-space semantics and the exact button-drag behavior to use this tool correctly. There is no output schema and no annotations to fill these gaps, so the description leaves important operational context unstated.

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 describes all five parameters, including units for duration and a default value, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline of 3.

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 a specific action — dragging the mouse from one position to another — and reinforces it with concrete use cases such as drag-and-drop, text selection, and window resizing. This distinguishes it well from sibling mouse tools like mouse_move and mouse_click.

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 gives clear contextual use cases for when dragging is appropriate. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like mouse_move for simple movement or mouse_click for clicks, but the stated use cases provide sufficient situational guidance.

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