browser_drop

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds 'as if dragged from outside the page', which clarifies the behavioral context. However, it does not disclose side effects like triggered events or potential navigation, which would be useful for a destructive, open-world tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, no redundant words. The critical constraint is included. Every sentence earns its place.

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 4 parameters (one required, nested object), no output schema, and sibling complexity, the description is adequate but could be more complete. It does not explain what the tool returns (no output schema) or mention preconditions like element interactability. The permission aspect hinted by the 'element' parameter is not covered.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating 'At least one of paths or data must be provided', a constraint not in the schema's required list (only target is required). It also reinforces 'MIME-typed data' for the data parameter. This extra guidance justifies a 4.

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', with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'browser_drag' (internal drag) and 'browser_file_upload' by noting 'as if dragged from outside the page'. The constraint 'at least one of paths or data' is also mentioned.

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 implies usage for simulating external drops (vs internal drag-and-drop) but does not explicitly compare to siblings like 'browser_drag' or 'browser_file_upload'. It provides a constraint (at least one of paths/data) but lacks when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations.

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