ui_click

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=true, and openWorld=true. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the two invocation paths (registered floater button callback vs coordinate-based click) and the fact that observe_path yields before/after state for verification. It stops short of stating reversibility or permission requirements, but adds real behavioral value.

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?

Four compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. Each sentence carries information about invocation or verification, though the final 'verify from readback' sentence is slightly vague.

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 and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the mechanism and verification path but omits prerequisites, error/failure behavior, and whether it waits for the click to settle. Adequate but with clear gaps for a tool of this risk profile.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the roles of 'floater' (registered button callback) and 'observe_path' (before/after state capture), covering two of four parameters, but 'path' and 'button' remain entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 ('a visible, enabled control'), qualifying the target state clearly. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like ui_select, ui_press_key, or ui_invoke_menu, so the agent must infer which UI action applies.

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 explains the internal mechanism (floater callback vs coordinates) but gives no when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It never says when to use ui_click rather than ui_select, ui_press_key, or ui_invoke_menu, leaving selection to inference.

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