browser_drag

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

The annotations already flag this as destructive with readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows it is a mutating action. However, the description adds no further behavioral context, such as the sequence of mouse events, potential navigation triggers, or element visibility requirements. It provides no additional transparency beyond the 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?

The description is a single, direct sentence that immediately states the action without extraneous words. It is well-structured and front-loaded, making it easy for the agent to parse.

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?

Despite having annotations and a detailed schema, the description itself is minimal. It does not explain the mechanics of the drag-and-drop, whether both elements must come from the same snapshot, or any post-conditions or side effects. The potential complexity of the action is not addressed, leaving the description incomplete for practical use.

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 input schema provides full descriptions for all four parameters, including the distinction between target references and human-readable descriptions used for permission. With 100% schema coverage, the description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it does not, aligning with the baseline of 3.

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 uses a specific verb 'drag and drop' and identifies the resource as 'two elements', clearly communicating the core action. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool browser_drop, which could also be interpreted as a drop action, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 provides no information on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hover, click, or browser_drop. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where drag-and-drop is appropriate, leaving the agent without guidance on tool selection.

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