browser_drag

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the tool is known to mutate state. The description adds no further behavioral nuance (e.g., whether events fire, whether drop is required, or what happens on failure). It simply restates the action without additional context, leaving the burden largely on the annotations.

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 that directly states the action. It is concise with no unnecessary words. While it is under-specified relative to the tool's complexity, conciseness itself is achieved; a 4 is given for efficient structure, though not maximal because it lacks contextual richness.

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 potentially destructive browser interaction with four parameters, the description offers minimal guidance. It does not mention the permission-related semantics of startElement/endElement, nor explain the distinction between target references and human-readable descriptions. Given the absence of an output schema and the complexity implied by destructiveHint, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand when and how to invoke it.

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% (all four parameters have descriptions), so the schema already documents each parameter. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the description does not compensate or improve upon the schema's parameter documentation.

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 action (drag and drop) and the resource (two elements). It is specific enough to understand what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'browser_drop', which could be a potential alternative for a simple drop operation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser_drop or browser_click. It implies a drag-and-drop interaction, but without explicit context or exclusions, an agent may not know when to select this over similar tools.

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