browser_drag

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

The description is consistent with annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false) as it implies a mutation action. However, it adds no behavioral details beyond the annotation hints, such as whether the drag is a continuous mouse gesture or a single-step action, or what events are triggered. With annotations already present, the description holds minimal added value.

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 short sentence that is front-loaded and to the point. It is concise but could include a bit more context without becoming verbose. The brevity does not hinder clarity, but it leaves gaps in completeness.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and a destructive hint, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what happens after the drag (e.g., if any return value is expected), error conditions, or prerequisites like element visibility. The description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior without additional structured context.

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?

All parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to compensate. The description mentions 'two elements' which aligns with startTarget and endTarget, but it does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 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?

Description states 'Perform drag and drop between two elements' which clearly identifies the action (drag-and-drop) and the resource (elements). It is specific enough to distinguish from coordinate-based drag tools like browser_mouse_drag_xy, but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling browser_drop, which may be a related but distinct operation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browser_mouse_drag_xy (for coordinate-based drag) or browser_drop (for drop events). The description lacks any mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.

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