browser_drag

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description's 'drag and drop' action is consistent with these annotations but adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., triggering mouse events, potential side effects). It does not contradict annotations, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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, 'Perform drag and drop between two elements,' with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and immediately communicates the core action, earning a high score for conciseness.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters but only a minimal description. However, the schema provides detailed parameter descriptions, and annotations cover safety and mutability. The description alone is thin but, combined with structured data, is minimally sufficient for a simple drag-and-drop action. It does not explain return values or edge cases, but for this complexity level, a 3 is fair.

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%, with each parameter (startTarget, endTarget, startElement, endElement) having its own description. The tool description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Per the baseline rule, a high-coverage schema yields a 3.

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 'Perform drag and drop between two elements' clearly states the action (drag and drop) and the resource (between two elements). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like browser_drop (drop without drag) and browser_click (single click).

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 such as browser_drop or browser_click. It lacks any exclusions, prerequisites, or context indicating when drag-and-drop is the appropriate action.

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