Drag and drop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one behavioral fact the schema cannot: the return value is the target's text afterwards. It still omits mutation/reversibility implications, how the drag is performed (HTML5 vs synthesized mouse events), and what happens when the drop fails — all meaningful for a notoriously flaky interaction.

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?

A single dense sentence with the core action front-loaded, followed by applicability examples and the return value. No filler, no restating of the name or title.

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 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers both parameter sourcing and the return value, which is most of what an agent needs. It stops short of covering failure modes or drag-mechanism caveats, which would be valuable for such a brittle operation.

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 baseline is 3, and the description adds a bit more: it clarifies that ids come from browser_elements, 'which lists draggables', and that visible text is also accepted for both endpoints. This helps the agent source valid values rather than guessing.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource ('Drag an element onto another') and enumerates the scenarios it targets (sorting lists, boards, upload drop zones, div-based sliders). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling tool `drag`, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 use cases listed imply when this tool is appropriate, and pointing to browser_elements for ids gives practical setup context. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no statement of failure/fallback conditions, and no routing away from the `drag` sibling.

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