drop_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the synthetic File construction, the exact event sequence dispatched, multi-agent tab ownership rules with the TAB_NOT_OWNED cross-agent rejection, the configurable concurrency cap (default 8, range 1-64), and when tab_id is required. It also documents the change_report return, its fields, and the truncation behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and mechanism, then alternatives, then the operational notes and return shape. Nearly every sentence earns its place, though the multi-agent/tab-ownership and cap paragraph is dense enough to slightly dilute the main guidance.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema, it covers execution mechanics, concurrency semantics, and the return payload including the truncated/hint fallback to read_page. The one notable gap is that the sibling upload_file is never mentioned, so the distinction between dropping a file onto a dropzone and uploading via a file input is left implicit.

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%, so the schema already documents all eight parameters and the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine context for tab_id (ownership-based resolution) and clarifies how fileName/fileContent/mimeType combine into the synthetic File, but it adds nothing for selector, client, visual_reason, or is_final 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Simulate dropping a file onto a dropzone element") and explains the mechanism: a synthetic File plus an HTML5 DragEvent sequence (dragenter, dragover, drop). It explicitly distinguishes itself from drag_drop for DOM-element dragging, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Names the target use cases concretely (Dropzone.js, react-dropzone, native HTML5 drop handlers) and gives an explicit exclusion with the alternative: "For drag-and-drop of DOM elements (not files), use drag_drop instead." It also points to get_dom_snapshot for finding dropzone selectors.

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