browser_drag

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which the description doesn't contradict (it implies mutation via 'drag and drop'). However, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations—it doesn't explain what 'destructive' means here (e.g., element state changes) or mention potential side effects like page reloads. No contradiction with annotations.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('Perform drag and drop') and specifies the scope ('between two elements') efficiently, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description is minimal but covers the basic purpose. It lacks details on error conditions, performance implications, or integration with sibling tools like browser_snapshot for obtaining references. Given the annotations provide safety context, it's adequate but not comprehensive.

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 clear descriptions for all four parameters (e.g., 'Human-readable source element description'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as explaining how startRef and endRef relate to browser_snapshot. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 ('perform drag and drop') and the target ('between two elements'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like browser_click or browser_hover, which also involve element interaction but with different actions.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a browser session or element references), nor does it compare to siblings like browser_click for simpler interactions or browser_file_upload for drag-and-drop file operations.

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