drag

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

The annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false) are uninformative, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. The description discloses the coordinate-based action but does not describe the press-hold-move-release behavior, speed/duration of the gesture, or how drag concludes. It's not misleading, so it stays at the minimal-viable level.

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 one short declarative sentence with no filler, repetition, or boilerplate, and the key operation ('drag') is front-loaded. It is as concise as the simple action permits, though it is short enough that it could have included a clause about gesture behavior without becoming bloated.

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 5-parameter mutation gesture with no output schema, the description is serviceable but thin: it omits whether the drag is a press-drag-release, whether coordinates are window-relative or absolute, and what side effects a drag may trigger (e.g., scrolling or text selection). A drag in a GUI automation context has enough behavioral nuance that a bit more context would be valuable.

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 every parameter (app, from_x, from_y, to_x, to_y) already has a meaningful schema description, warranting the baseline 3. The description does add that the coordinates are pixel-based, which clarifies the number semantics slightly, but it doesn't go beyond the schema in any other way.

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 names a specific verb ('drag'), a resource ('from one point to another'), and the method ('using pixel coordinates'), so an agent understands the action without opening the schema. It is not a tautology and it clearly communicates a mouse-drag gesture. It loses a point because it doesn't differentiate itself from siblings like click or select_text, which can also involve point-to-point movement.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus click, scroll, select_text, or perform_secondary_action, and it states no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and the bare verb 'drag'. This is essentially no when-to-use guidance.

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