browser_drag_and_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 only states 'Perform drag and drop' without mentioning how the action is simulated (e.g., native mouse events), whether elements must be in viewport, or what happens if the target is invalid. This is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or constraints.

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 extremely concise (6 words) and front-loaded with the core action. While it could benefit from slightly more context, it avoids verbosity. A score of 4 reflects that it is efficiently structured but borders on being too minimal.

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 absence of output schema and annotations, the description should compensate with behavioral details (e.g., return value, error conditions). It fails to do so. For a mouse interaction tool, missing prerequisites (drag source must be a valid draggable element) and behavioral nuances make the description incomplete. A score of 2 indicates significant gaps.

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 100% of parameters (by, value, targetBy, targetValue, timeout), each with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Per the guidelines, when schema coverage is high (100%), a baseline score of 3 is appropriate. No extra value provided by the description.

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 (perform drag and drop) and the resource (between two elements). It is specific enough to differentiate from basic click or hover operations, though it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like browser_hover or browser_click. A score of 4 is appropriate as it provides a clear verb+resource combination.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include browser_hover, browser_click, and browser_scroll_to_element, but the description offers no context about prerequisites (e.g., element must be draggable) or scenarios where drag-and-drop is preferred. This lack of usage direction makes it difficult for an agent to select the correct tool.

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