browser_drop

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's burden is lower. However, it adds no extra behavioral context—e.g., that dropping triggers DOM events, may cause navigation, or could require element permission. It simply restates the action without enriching the safety profile beyond 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?

Two sentences with zero fluff; the core action and the mandatory constraint are front-loaded. Every word earns its place, and the structure is immediately scannable.

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?

For a tool with full schema coverage and an existing annotation set, the description covers the essential invocation logic (the at-least-one requirement) and the two data modes. It doesn't explain return values or side effects, but no output schema exists and the schema already documents all parameters. Minor omissions around element targeting are handled by the schema.

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%, but the description adds the critical constraint that at least one of 'paths' or 'data' must be provided, and clarifies the two modes (files vs MIME data). This goes beyond the baseline by preventing invalid invocations.

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 action (drop) on a specific resource (files or MIME-typed data) onto an element, clearly distinguishing from siblings like browser_file_upload (upload via input) and browser_drag (drag within page). The wording 'as if dragged from outside the page' reinforces its unique scope.

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 implies usage for external data drops but never explicitly contrasts it with alternatives like browser_file_upload or browser_drag, nor mentions when NOT to use it. The sibling list provides context but the description itself offers no routing guidance.

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