browser_drop

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the mutation risk is known. The description adds context that the drop is simulated as an external drag, and the 'At least one of paths or data' constraint is useful. It does not describe side effects (e.g., navigation) but with annotations present, this is acceptable.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and key constraint. Every word earns its place without redundancy.

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 output schema, the description combined with the detailed input schema covers the essential semantics: what is dropped, on what, and the required data. It does not explain post-drop behavior, but given the simplicity of the action and existing annotations, this is sufficient.

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 already covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by stating the dependency between 'paths' and 'data' (at least one required), which is not enforced by the schema's required array. This extra constraint earns a 4.

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 ('Drop') and resource ('files or MIME-typed data onto an element'), and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like browser_drag by noting 'as if dragged from outside the page'. It also conveys essential constraints (must provide paths or data).

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 phrase 'as if dragged from outside the page' implies when to use this tool vs browser_drag (which is for in-page dragging), and the constraint 'At least one of paths or data must be provided' gives a precondition. However, it does not explicitly reference alternatives or state when not to use it.

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