browser_drop

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It discloses an important constraint ('At least one of paths or data must be provided') and clarifies the external-drop nature, but it does not mention potential side effects, permission requirements, or the dispatched events (drop, dragenter, etc.). This is some but not full transparency.

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, starts with the action, and includes only essential information. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or 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?

For a 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives the core purpose and a key logical constraint, but omits usage guidance and deeper behavioral context (e.g., events, prerequisites). The schema covers parameter specifics, so the description is not wholly inadequate, but it is not fully complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds a valuable constraint that is not enforced by the schema's required fields: at least one of 'paths' or 'data' must be supplied. This gives meaningful guidance about parameter relationships 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'), the resource ('onto an element'), and the data being dropped ('files or MIME-typed data'). It also distinguishes from siblings like browser_drag or browser_file_upload by specifying 'as if dragged from outside the page', making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context: you drop files or MIME data onto an element, simulating an external drag-and-drop. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when NOT to use this tool (e.g., for in-page drags use browser_drag, for file inputs use browser_file_upload), so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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