Click at coordinates

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

The description does not mention any side effects beyond the click itself, such as whether it triggers navigation or waits for page load. Since annotations only indicate it is not read-only and not destructive, the description carries the burden but provides minimal extra detail about the click's behavior.

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, using only two sentences to convey the action and the key guidance. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

The tool is simple and self-contained; the description gives enough context about what it does and when to prefer it. It could mention that coordinates are relative to the viewport, but that is already implied by 'viewport coordinates' in the description and the parameter names.

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?

All parameters (x, y, button, doubleClick) have straightforward descriptions in the schema, covering 100% of parameters. The description adds no additional per-parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 tool clicks at viewport coordinates, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from browser_click by mentioning the alternative with a ref, making its purpose unambiguous even among many sibling mouse tools.

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 explicitly advises preferring browser_click with a ref and explains why (coordinates break when layout shifts). This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternative, leaving no ambiguity for the agent.

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