browser_drop

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is a mutating operation, and the description does not contradict that. The description adds useful mechanism context (the drop is synthesized as if dragged from outside the page) and the paths/data constraint, but it doesn't disclose failure behavior — what happens if the element isn't a valid drop target, if file paths don't exist, or whether the drop can trigger navigation or form submission.

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 sentences totaling roughly 26 words with zero filler. The action is front-loaded, the critical runtime constraint follows immediately, and 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?

The schema documents all parameters and annotations carry the destructive safety profile, so the core invocation is adequately covered. But there is no output schema and the description says nothing about failure modes, prerequisites, or post-drop behavior for a tool flagged destructive — an agent is left guessing at error semantics and what a successful drop returns.

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 all four parameters (data, paths, target, element) are already documented in the schema. The description adds genuine value by stating 'at least one of paths or data must be provided' — a runtime constraint the schema does not encode, since only target is listed as required. This prevents an agent from constructing a schema-valid call that would fail at execution.

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 states a specific action — 'Drop files or MIME-typed data onto an element' — with a clear verb, resource, and input modality. The clause 'as if dragged from outside the page' helps distinguish it from browser_drag, which handles in-page dragging. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with browser_file_upload, the other closely-related sibling that also deals with files, so sibling differentiation is mostly implicit.

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 mechanism clause ('as if dragged from outside the page') implies the tool is for simulating external drag-and-drop, which gives some usage context. But the description names no alternatives or exclusion conditions — it never says 'use browser_file_upload for file inputs' or 'use browser_drag for in-page reordering.' With two very close siblings, explicit routing guidance would significantly help an agent select the correct tool.

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