browser_drop_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains that strategy 2 intercepts the native OS file-chooser without showing the dialog, and it states the file constraints (regular files inside working directory, refusal of folders/symlinks/hardlinks pointing outside). It could mention failure behavior when both strategies fail, but it covers key traits well.

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 somewhat long but every sentence contributes value, and the structure is logical (purpose, strategy 1, strategy 2, constraints). It is front-loaded with the primary usage, and the details are organized in a readable list format.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers the tool's purpose, usage, both strategies, and constraints. It omits only minor details like error handling or preconditions (e.g., active browser session), which are implied by the sibling toolset and not critical for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining the selector's dual role (drop-zone target or button opening the dialog) and by clarifying that file paths must be regular files inside the working directory. This is additional context the schema does not provide.

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 tool's purpose: uploading a file when browser_upload_file fails. It also distinguishes it from the sibling browser_upload_file and details two distinct strategies, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicitly specifies when to use this tool ('when browser_upload_file fails') and provides a clear decision path between the two strategies, including the condition for each. It also names the alternative tool, making usage guidance unambiguous.

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