playwright__browser_drag

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

Annotations already indicate the operation is mutating (readOnlyHint false) and potentially destructive (destructiveHint true). The description adds no further behavioral context, such as mouse down/move/up mechanics, visibility requirements, or potential page-state effects. There is no contradiction with the annotations, but the description contributes almost nothing beyond them.

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 sentence with no filler and front-loads the action ('Perform drag and drop'). It is appropriately concise for a simple tool definition, even though other dimensions carry the cost of its brevity.

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?

The tool has two required targets, no output schema, and destructive potential, yet the description says nothing about what the tool returns, how the drop is executed, or whether both elements must be present/visible. The schema and annotations cover parameters and mutability, but the overall operational context is incomplete.

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 the baseline is 3 because the schema already documents all four parameters. The description's 'between two elements' loosely aligns with startTarget and endTarget but adds no meaningful detail about startElement/endElement or selector behavior.

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 names a concrete action, 'drag and drop', and identifies the two elements involved via 'between two elements'. It is clear enough for an agent to understand the basic operation. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool playwright__browser_drop, which is a minor ambiguity given the similar names.

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?

No usage context is provided: there is no statement about when to use drag-and-drop, no prerequisites, and no comparison with alternatives such as browser_drop, browser_click, or browser_hover. The intended use is only implied by the tool name and one-line description.

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