desktop_click

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the coordinate frame and the rejection of expired or changed layouts, but does not mention side effects, error/success behavior, or whether the target window must first be activated.

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 a single, focused sentence. The action and coordinate system are front-loaded, and the second clause adds an important operational detail without filler.

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 coordinate-click tool, the description plus schema is minimally viable: it explains the key non-obvious facts of coordinate space and stale-layout rejection. However, without annotations or an output schema, it leaves gaps around how to obtain snapshot_id, what happens on success or failure, and whether the window must already be active.

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%, so the description must compensate. It partially does: x/y are explained as screenshot-image coordinates, snapshot_id relates to layout freshness, and window_id maps to the active target client. Count and button semantics are left to the schema enums and defaults.

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 specific verb and resource: clicking screenshot-image coordinates inside the active target client. This clearly distinguishes the tool from element-focused siblings like desktop_focus_element or desktop_invoke.

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 gives useful context: use screenshot-derived coordinates and expect rejection when the layout snapshot is stale. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions, but the intended context is clear enough.

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