browser_drag

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the action of dragging. It does not disclose whether it simulates events (mousedown, mousemove, mouseup), whether elements must be visible or in viewport, what happens if refs are stale, or any side effects. The description is essentially a tautology of the tool name, offering no extra transparency.

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 with no wasted words, and it front-loads the core action. However, it is so minimal that it borders on under-specification, lacking any structural elements like examples or additional context. It earns a 4 for being appropriately brief but not 5 because it omits useful structural guidance.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and moderate complexity (4 required params), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the relationship between start/end elements and refs, whether the action waits for completion, or any side effects on the page state. Sibling tools likely have more detailed descriptions, making this tool's contextual information insufficient for an agent to use it correctly without extra inference.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters (startElement, startRef, endElement, endRef), identifying source and target elements and their refs. The description 'Drag from one element to another' adds no semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already handles parameter understanding.

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 'Drag from one element to another' clearly states the action (drag) and the resource (elements), distinguishing it from sibling tools like browser_click or browser_hover which are all distinctly named and scoped. It is specific and unambiguous, providing a complete verb+resource statement.

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 versus alternatives, lacks any mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an active snapshot or specific element refs), and does not indicate scenarios where drag is preferable to other browser actions. It only gives a bare action statement with no contextual usage advice.

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