browser_click

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely fails: it says nothing about whether the click waits for the element to exist, scrolls it into view, what happens if the selector matches nothing or the page is not loaded, or whether a browser session must already be open. It only restates the mutation action implied by the name.

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 sentences, the primary mode listed first, and the argument constraint stated immediately after with no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves the agent without error/failure semantics, session prerequisites, or any indication of what a successful click returns. A simple tool, but the missing behavioral context is exactly the gap the description should have filled.

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 100%, so the schema already explains x, y, and selector, setting the baseline at 3. The description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by declaring mutual exclusivity between the selector mode and the coordinate mode, a constraint the schema itself does not encode (zero required parameters).

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 the exact resource it acts on (CSS selector or viewport x/y point), so an agent can tell it apart from browser_type, browser_press, and browser_scroll. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or say how it differs from e.g. browser_press, but the action itself is unambiguous.

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?

"Provide one, not both" gives a real constraint on argument selection, which is useful since no parameter is marked required. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer a selector versus coordinates (selector is normally the reliable path, coordinates the fallback for non-CSS targets), nor any precondition such as the page already being open.

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