computer_drag

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the abstract action and does not mention that a drag typically involves pressing a button, moving the cursor, and releasing, nor any side effects or reversibility. This is a notable transparency gap for an input-mutation 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, though slightly sparse in behavioral context.

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 has no annotations, multiple parameters, and many sibling input tools, the description is incomplete: it does not explain the press-move-release behavior, when to use drag over alternatives, or what result to expect. The output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but behavioral and selection context is still missing.

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 the baseline is 3; the schema already documents all six parameters including defaults. The description adds only the general notion that start and end values define a drag path, without adding extra meaning for button or duration. This is adequate but not additive.

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 uses a specific verb ('drag') and a precise operation ('from start coordinates to end coordinates'), making the core action clear. It does not explicitly distinguish drag from sibling tools like computer_move or computer_mouse_down/up, but the term 'drag' is a recognizable distinct action.

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 implies the tool is for drag interactions, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives such as computer_move, computer_mouse_down, or computer_mouse_up. An agent is left to infer the boundary between dragging and composing a move/click sequence manually.

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