browser_drag

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It states the action but omits any side effects, return values, waiting behavior, or whether it triggers events. It also does not explain the 'timeout' parameter or any iframe handling, leaving significant behavioral unknowns.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and identification method. It contains no fluff and is appropriately sized for a tool with three parameters.

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 drag operation with nested source/target objects and a timeout, the description is minimal. It does not cover iframe handling (frameSelector), return values, error cases, or what constitutes a successful drag. Given the complexity of the schema and the lack of an output schema, the description leaves the agent without enough context to confidently invoke the tool correctly.

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 67% (source and target have descriptions, timeout does not). The tool description aligns with the schema by mentioning CSS selectors and aria refs, but it adds little beyond what the schema already indicates. The timeout parameter is left undocumented in both schema and description, so semantics for that are unclear.

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 performs a drag action from a source to a target element, using CSS selectors or aria refs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser_click or browser_fill. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from potential similar actions like browser_hover or browser_press_key, though drag is unique enough.

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 implies the tool is used when a drag-and-drop interaction is needed, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or conditions (e.g., element visibility, supported drag targets). The usage context is inferred from the action name rather than stated.

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