playwright__browser_drop

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description adds the behavioral context of simulating a drag from outside the page. However, it does not mention potential side effects like triggering page navigation, file downloads, or that the element must be a valid drop target. The description adds moderate value beyond 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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence defines the core action, the second adds a critical constraint. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

The description covers the core functionality and constraints. It does not explain the permission mechanism for the 'element' parameter (covered in schema) or the need for a valid drop target, but for a specialized tool with a detailed schema, it is sufficiently complete. No output schema exists, but the return value is implied by the action.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds a usage constraint ('at least one of paths or data must be provided') that is not in the schema's required list, and clarifies the two modes. This adds meaningful value beyond the parameter descriptions in 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 verb 'drop' and the resource 'files or MIME-typed data onto an element'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like file_upload by specifying 'as if dragged from outside the page', and clarifies the two input modes with the constraint 'at least one of paths or data must be provided'.

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 implicitly distinguishes from file upload (for input elements) and drag (within-page), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does provide a clear prerequisite: at least one of 'paths' or 'data' must be provided.

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