browser_drop

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

Annotations already indicate destructive=true, readOnly=false, and openWorld=true. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by clarifying that the drop is simulated 'as if from outside the page' and that paths/data are mutually required. It does not disclose permission requirements or the side effects of a drop, but the destructive annotation already flags risk.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the core action first, then the required constraint. Every phrase earns its place; there is no wasted wording or unnecessary repetition of schema details.

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?

Combined with a fully documented schema and safety-relevant annotations, the description is sufficient for a basic call. However, it lacks guidance on when to prefer paths over data, what happens if both are supplied, or how target/element interact. It is adequate but could be more complete for a browser-interaction tool.

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 documents all parameters well. The description adds value by stating the non-obvious constraint that 'at least one' of paths or data must be provided, which the schema itself does not enforce since only target is required. It also implicitly maps paths and data to the two input modes mentioned.

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 names a specific action ('Drop'), a resource ('onto an element'), and the two supported input forms ('files or MIME-typed data'). The phrase 'as if dragged from outside the page' clearly distinguishes this from browser_drag (internal drag) and browser_file_upload. The at-least-one constraint further sharpens the tool's 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 description implies the use case — simulating an external drag-and-drop — which helps an agent choose this over browser_drag. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it, nor does it name sibling alternatives like browser_file_upload or browser_drag. The usage guidance is adequate but left mostly to inference.

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