browser_drag

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It does well by stating that it 'Fires both HTML5 drag-and-drop and a pointer-drag sequence,' explaining how it handles both native and JS-library targets. It could add more about side effects or timing, but the core behavior is well disclosed.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and examples, followed by the mechanism detail. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy.

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 two-parameter action with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the source and target, gives use cases, and explains the dual-input strategy. It does not explain how refs are obtained, but the schema names them and the tool fits into a broader browser toolset where refs are a standard concept.

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 both fromRef and toRef clearly described as 'Ref of the element to drag' and 'Ref of the drop target.' The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Drag one element onto another,' and lists concrete real-world scenarios (kanban cards, sortable lists, file tiles, sliders). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling actions like browser_click, browser_hover, and browser_scroll.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool through example use cases. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the drag-specific purpose is unambiguous, and no sibling tool is dedicated to dragging.

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