browser_drag

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

Annotations already mark this as non-read-only and destructive, so the mutation risk is known. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the action itself—no mention of side effects, required element states, waiting, or event triggering.

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 9-word sentence that is easy to scan and front-loads the action. It is concise without waste, though it stops short of adding operational detail that would make it more useful.

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?

While the description plus schema and annotations cover the basic invocation (source and target elements, destructive nature), the tool lacks any indication of when to use it, prerequisites, or behavioral outcomes. This leaves gaps for an agent deciding between several interaction tools, so it is adequate but not complete.

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 provides descriptions for all four parameters, and the tool-level description adds no parameter details. Given 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies without any extra semantic enrichment.

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 states a clear verb phrase 'Perform drag and drop' and identifies the resource as 'between two elements'. This conveys the core action precisely, but does not explicitly distinguish it from the sibling browser_drop or coordinate with browser_click/hover.

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 guidance is given about when drag and drop is preferable to alternatives like browser_click, browser_hover, or browser_drop. The description neither states use cases nor excludes alternatives, so an agent must infer applicability from context.

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