Drop files or data onto an element

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

The annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which signal that the tool modifies state and interacts with external resources. The description adds context by saying 'as if dragged from outside the page', explaining the simulated behavior. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as side effects on the element, permissions needed, or error states. The description does not contradict 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 concise at two sentences, with the first sentence stating the core purpose and the second adding a key constraint. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing parameters), but overall it is efficient.

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 5 parameters, destructive behavior, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the description is insufficient. It does not explain how to use the parameters (e.g., how to specify 'target'), what the return value is, or prerequisites like the element being present. It only distinguishes from siblings via the 'outside the page' phrase. More detail is needed for a complete understanding.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description must compensate, but it only mentions two of five parameters ('paths' and 'data') without explaining their types or formats. The other parameters ('target', 'element', '_meta') are not described at all. 'target' is required but its meaning (e.g., CSS selector) is not clarified. The description adds minimal value beyond the parameter names.

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), the resource (files or MIME-typed data), and the target (an element). It distinguishes from siblings like 'browser_drag' by specifying 'as if dragged from outside the page', and from 'browser_file_upload' by emphasizing MIME-typed data. The constraint 'at least one of paths or data' further clarifies the purpose.

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 implicit guidance by stating 'as if dragged from outside the page', which hints at when to use this tool (external drag-and-drop) versus internal drag (browser_drag). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like browser_file_upload. The constraint about requiring paths or data is helpful but not a full usage guideline.

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