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 behavioral disclosure burden. It does well by explaining the hidden-input search scope, the native OS file-chooser interception, and that the dialog never appears. However, it does not disclose failure behavior, such as what happens if neither strategy finds a target or if the file path is invalid.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary trigger condition ('when browser_upload_file fails'), then organizes the two strategies clearly. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant filler.

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's complexity, the lack of annotations, and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the main contextual needs: when to use, how the two strategies work, what the selector refers to, and a real-world example. The only notable gap is the absence of success/failure indicators or behavior when both strategies fail, which would be useful for agent decision-making.

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 description adds real semantic value by clarifying that the selector's meaning depends on the strategy: it acts as a drop-zone target for strategy 1, but as the button that opens the dialog for strategy 2. It also reinforces the file alias, which is already in the schema, but the strategy-dependent selector clarification pushes it above baseline.

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 verb and resource: 'Upload a file when browser_upload_file fails.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling browser_upload_file by explicitly positioning this tool as the fallback. It also outlines two concrete strategies, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 says when to use this tool: when browser_upload_file fails. It then provides decision guidance between the two strategies: strategy 1 when a hidden file input exists in the subtree or up to 2 ancestor levels, strategy 2 when no input exists at all, with a concrete example (Google Ads). This is exemplary usage guidance.

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