browser_drag

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows it is a mutating action. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as side effects, event triggering, element visibility requirements, or that it simulates user interaction. It provides no value beyond 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, precise sentence with no fluff. It is perfectly concise and front-loaded, containing only the essential information. Every word earns its place, making it an example of efficient writing.

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?

While the tool is simple and the schema fully documents parameters, the description lacks any further context about return values (none are specified) or the implications of a destructive action beyond the annotation. It is minimally adequate but misses opportunities to explain the drag-and-drop behavior, such as the order of events or that the element references must correspond to snapshot entries.

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?

The schema has 100% parameter coverage, with each parameter having a descriptive comment. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates that the tool operates between two elements, which is already implied by the parameter descriptions. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the action clearly: 'Perform drag and drop between two elements'. It identifies a specific verb and resource, and implies the two key parameters. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling 'browser_drop', which could also involve a drop action, reducing differentiation.

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 instead of alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context about appropriate scenarios. It simply states what it does without any usage direction or mention of alternative tools.

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