browser_drag

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no further behavioral context such as permission requirements, effects on page state, or interaction constraints, leaving it with minimal added value beyond the structured 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 single sentence is front-loaded and contains no wasted words, making it appropriately sized for a tool with a clear core action. It could be slightly more informative without becoming bloated, but it avoids unnecessary repetition.

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 full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is minimally adequate for invoking the tool correctly. However, it omits important contextual details such as when the tool should be chosen over siblings and any constraints around element references or session handling, leaving gaps for an agent unfamiliar with browser automation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter's meaning and requirements are fully documented in the schema. The description only implies a start and end element, adding negligible semantic detail beyond what the structured parameter descriptions provide. A baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries this burden.

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 a specific verb and resource ('perform drag and drop') and clearly identifies the operation as being between two elements. It is distinct from sibling tools like browser_click and browser_hover, but it does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browser_click, browser_hover, or browser_fill_form, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The usage is only implied by the tool name and description, which is insufficient for confident selection.

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