browser_drop

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety information. It adds the 'as if dragged from outside the page' behavioral context and the constraint that paths/data must be provided, which is useful but not extensive.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no redundant wording. Every clause 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?

With four parameters, no output schema, and annotations providing safety hints, the description covers the operation's purpose and key constraints. It doesn't describe return values, but that's not required for a drop action and the schema fills in parameter details.

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 all four parameters have descriptions. The description adds an explicit constraint that at least one of paths or data must be provided, which is not enforced by the schema (which only requires target). This adds meaningful semantic value.

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 drops files or MIME-typed data onto an element, simulating an external drag-and-drop. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser_file_upload or browser_drag by specifying the 'outside the page' source and the drop target.

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 phrase 'as if dragged from outside the page' provides clear context for when to use this tool, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives. This is clear context without exclusions, so it earns a 4.

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