browser_drop

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description aligns by stating 'Drop files or MIME-typed data onto an element, as if dragged from outside the page,' implying page modification. It adds behavioral context (simulating external drag) beyond the annotations, which is helpful.

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: first defines the purpose, second provides a critical parameter guideline. No unnecessary words, front-loaded, and every sentence adds value. It is efficiently structured.

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's complexity (4 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers purpose and a key constraint. However, it does not mention what happens after the drop (e.g., event triggering) or elaborate on 'MIME-typed data' beyond schema. Still, it is adequately complete for the action.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds value by explicitly stating the constraint 'At least one of 'paths' or 'data' must be provided,' which is not enforced by schema (only target is required). This clarifies a key usage rule beyond the schema.

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 (element), and the type of data (files or MIME-typed data). It distinguishes itself from siblings like browser_drag (internal drag) and browser_file_upload (different mechanism) by specifying 'as if dragged from outside the page.'

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 one usage guideline: 'At least one of 'paths' or 'data' must be provided.' However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to simulate an external drop vs. a click or file upload). No exclusions or context for selecting among siblings are given.

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