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

Annotations already flag destructive and openWorld, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: a five-second timeout producing an unknown outcome and an explicit 'never retry with a new ID' idempotency rule. It also discloses that it returns observed state. That is substantial value beyond the 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?

Three tight sentences with no filler, and the safety-critical timeout warning is given its own sentence. The telegraphic style ('Five-second timeout is unknown outcome') is compact but slightly ambiguous as prose.

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 destructive, open-world mutation with no output schema, the description covers the retry-safety hazard well but leaves the semantics of selector, controlToken, and componentID unexplained and gives no detail on the shape of 'observed state'.

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 0% across seven required parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It names revision, version, operation ID, and an inspected target (mapping to expectedRevision, expectedComponentVersion, operationID, targetID) but says nothing about selector, componentID, or controlToken, leaving three required parameters fully opaque.

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 specific verb ('click') and resource ('typed component') plus the execution context ('active sandbox'), which distinguishes it from siblings like fill, select, and inspect. However, 'typed component click' is jargon-laden and the scope of what a 'component' is remains implicit.

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 phrase 'an inspected target for mutations' implies inspect must run first, which is useful routing context. But it never contrasts click with the closely related siblings fill and select, so the agent must infer which interaction tool applies when.

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