browser_drop

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It names the action but does not describe side effects, what the 'selector' targets (drop point vs. element), whether DOM changes occur, or what happens on completion. This is too opaque for a browser automation action.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. No filler or redundant content.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is under-specified. The required 'selector' is ambiguous—does it identify the element to drop or the drop target? There is no mention of pairing with browser_drag or post-condition behavior, making it incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions for 'selector' and '_agent_id'. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 '放下被拖拽的元素' clearly states the action ('drop') and the resource ('the dragged element'), and it contrasts with sibling tool browser_drag. However, it lacks explicit scope or context about the drop target, so it stops short of a fully specified purpose.

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 use case is implied: '被拖拽的元素' (the dragged element) presupposes a prior drag operation, likely with browser_drag. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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