Simulate drag-and-drop by moving from one element to another, enabling AI agents to automate complex browser interactions.
Drag from one element to another.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| endTarget | Yes | ||
| endElement | No | ||
| startTarget | Yes | Element ref like e3 from a prior browser_snapshot, OR a raw Playwright selector (css=, xpath=, text=, role=). | |
| startElement | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing beyond the action verb. It does not say whether this uses HTML5 drag events or mouse events, whether source/target must be scrolled into view, whether the operation waits for completion, or what happens if the source is missing.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler — but for a 4-parameter tool with confusingly overlapping parameter names, this level of brevity reads as under-specification rather than tightness.
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?
A multi-parameter interaction tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only 25% schema coverage needs the description to fill several gaps (parameter disambiguation, prerequisites, failure semantics), and it supplies none of them.
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 only 25%; startTarget is documented and endTarget inherits that text via $ref, but startElement and endElement are completely bare and the description does nothing to explain why both a 'Target' and an 'Element' variant exist or when each should be used. This ambiguity is exactly what the description should resolve and it does not.
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?
States a specific verb ('drag') and its two endpoints ('from one element to another'), so the agent immediately knows this is a pointer-based drag interaction rather than a click or hover. It does not name or distinguish itself from the obvious sibling browser_drop, but the resource/verb pairing is unambiguous.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling tools that overlap with it (browser_drop, browser_click). It also omits the practical requirement implied by the schema that element refs typically come from a prior browser_snapshot, so the agent gets no routing help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.