browser_drag

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

The annotations already communicate that this is not read-only and may be destructive. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the bare action, such as what the drag causes, whether elements move, whether drop events fire, or whether user permission is required for the source and target elements.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and the object, every word earns its place, and it is immediately scannable by an agent.

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 simple action tool, the schema and annotations cover the required parameters and safety profile, and there is no output schema to document. However, the description leaves some ambiguity around when to use this tool versus the sibling browser_drop, and it does not mention the optional permission-related element descriptions that appear in the schema.

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 the parameters are already well-documented in the input schema. The description's phrase 'between two elements' loosely maps to startTarget and endTarget, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action ('drag and drop') and the resources involved ('between two elements'), so an agent can understand the tool's core function. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool browser_drop, but the compound phrase 'drag and drop' and tool name convey the full gesture.

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 intended use is implied: an agent should use this tool when a drag-and-drop interaction between two elements is needed. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as browser_drop, browser_click, or browser_hover.

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