browser_drag

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not mention whether this performs a single composed gesture, whether the drop triggers events, whether the browser waits for transitions, or what side effects may occur. The description simply restates the action without adding meaningful behavioral context.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core action, with no filler words. However, it is under-specified rather than usefully concise: key aspects like the start/end element relationship, reference semantics, and behavior are missing, making the brevity less helpful than it could be.

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 that this is an interactive browser tool with four required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too minimal. An agent would not know from the description how to structure the drag operation, what qualifies as a valid start or end element, or what outcome to expect, so the contextual information is incomplete.

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 describes all four parameters with basic labels such as 'Start element description', 'Start element reference', and their end counterparts, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, such as how descriptions and references should be paired or what format is expected, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear verb action ('drag and drop') and a resource ('element'), which identifies the tool's basic purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools like click, hover, and type. However, it is still quite terse and does not indicate that the operation involves both a start element and an end element, so it lacks specificity about the drag relationship.

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 explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browser_click, browser_hover, or browser_evaluate. The appropriate use case is only vaguely implied by the phrase 'drag and drop' and no exclusions, prerequisites, or fallback guidance are provided.

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