browser_drop

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint: true and readOnlyHint: false, indicating mutation. The description adds that the drop simulates a drag-from-outside interaction, which is useful. However, it does not disclose effects on page state, potential side effects like triggering uploads or navigation, or permission implications. Since the destructive hint is present, the bar is lower, but the description could add more context about what might happen on drop (e.g., triggering file handlers).

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 action and key constraint. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundancy. It effectively communicates the essential information without over-explaining.

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 moderate complexity (4 params, nested object for data), the description covers the essential constraint and behavior. The annotations cover safety profile (destructiveHint, readOnlyHint). No output schema means agents cannot know return value, but the description could mention what happens on success/failure (e.g., returns nothing or error). However, the schema provides enough for parameter usage, and the description adds the key constraint, making it reasonably complete for a simulation action.

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 description coverage is 100% (4 of 4 parameters have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly stating the condition that at least one of paths or data must be provided, which is not in the schema. This clarifies the relationship between parameters. The schema already explains MIME-type mapping and absolute paths, so there is minimal extra need beyond that.

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 action ('Drop files or MIME-typed data onto an element') and the context ('as if dragged from outside the page'). It distinguishes from siblings like browser_file_upload (upload vs drop) and browser_drag (internal drag and drop vs external drop). The requirement that at least one of paths or data must be provided is a key differentiator.

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 for simulating external drag-and-drop operations, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over browser_file_upload or browser_drag. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives are mentioned, though the 'as if dragged from outside the page' phrasing provides some context. It could benefit from clarifying that it is not for internal drag-and-drop (use browser_drag) or for file selection dialogs (use browser_file_upload).

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