browser_drop

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is partially disclosed. The description adds the 'as if dragged from outside the page' simulation context and the requirement that at least one of 'paths' or 'data' must be provided. However, it does not disclose side effects, permissions, or what happens after the drop, so the added transparency is limited.

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 long and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence adds a necessary constraint about parameters. Every word earns its place; there is no filler.

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 description sufficiently explains the tool's behavior for a moderately complex action with nested objects. It covers the main action, the data types, and a key constraint, which is enough for an agent to invoke it. It lacks explicit guidance on return values or when to choose this over alternatives, but these are not critical for a drop operation.

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 covers all four parameters with descriptions, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds a cross-parameter constraint—'At least one of "paths" or "data" must be provided'—which is not present in the schema's required list. This extra semantic clarifies the relationship between the parameters, going beyond the schema.

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, as if dragged from outside the page.' It specifies the resource (element), the input types (files or MIME-typed data), and the manner (as if dragged from outside), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser_drag or browser_file_upload.

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 clear context for when to use the tool—when needing to simulate dropping files or data from outside the page onto an element. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the unique 'outside the page' distinction gives enough contextual guidance for an agent to select it over similar tools.

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