click

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one real trait beyond the schema, a blocking restriction on destructive actions, but says nothing about page-load waits, timing behavior, failure modes, or permissions for a browser-mutating click.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler: the action first, then the restriction. Efficient, though the second sentence's cryptic "IB" wording costs it a point.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. Still, for a parameter-heavy browser action with zero annotation and zero schema-description coverage, the definition leaves wait_ms semantics and the scope of the blocking rule undefined.

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 meaningfully clarifies the required selector parameter by revealing the "text=..." selector syntax, but leaves wait_ms entirely unexplained (wait before or after the click?). Partial compensation only.

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 and mechanism ("Click by CSS selector or text=..."), which is specific enough that an agent understands it clicks a page element rather than submitting a form (fill) or running arbitrary code (evaluate_js). It lacks any explicit sibling differentiation, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

"Blocked for destructive IB actions owned by dedicated tools" is a partial when-not rule, giving implied guidance to use other tools for those actions. However, "IB" is undefined jargon and no alternative tool is actually named, so the agent must infer both the usage context and the fallback.

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