Drag and drop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a meaningful implementation trait: real mouse events under CDP with synthetic pointer/drag fallback. However, it omits permissions, error behavior, return values, and what happens on unsupported surfaces — significant gaps for an interaction 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?

Two tight sentences with the mechanism and the applicability front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It is close to optimal for what it covers, though brevity here comes partly at the cost of the missing parameter detail.

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 13-parameter, zero-annotation, no-output-schema mutation-style interaction tool, the description is far too thin. It leaves selectors vs coordinates, timing, step count, and frame/tab targeting entirely undocumented.

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?

There are 13 parameters at 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds essentially nothing beyond the vague hint that a source and target can be an 'element/point'. Parameters like steps, duration, trusted, tabId, and frameId are entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Drag from one element/point to another' — so an agent immediately knows this performs a drag gesture, distinct from click/hover siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives, which a 5 would require.

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 line 'Works for pointer-based UIs and many HTML5 drop zones' implies when this is applicable, and 'when CDP is available' hints at a precondition, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative tool. Usage is only implied.

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