browser_drop

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint: true and openWorldHint: true, which signal behavioral traits. The description adds the context of simulating an external drag-and-drop, but does not detail what gets destroyed or side effects. With annotations covering the core, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 only two sentences, with no superfluous words. Key information is front-loaded: the action, the target element, and the condition on parameters.

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?

Given the tool complexity (4 parameters, one required), the description covers the main behavior and a key constraint. Annotations fill in behavioral context. No output schema exists, but the description does not need to explain returns. Minor omissions like what happens when both paths and data are provided do not significantly detract.

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 descriptions cover all 4 parameters (100% coverage), but the tool description adds a critical constraint that at least one of 'paths' or 'data' must be provided, which is not implied by the required field (only target is required). This provides meaningful guidance 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?

The description clearly states the action (drop files or MIME-typed data onto an element) and distinguishes from sibling tools like browser_drag by specifying 'as if dragged from outside the page', which differentiates it from internal drag operations.

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 through the action of dropping external content, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like browser_file_upload or browser_drag. The condition 'at least one of paths or data must be provided' is helpful but not a full usage guideline.

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