click

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that x,y triggers a 'real' browser-level click and that dragTo performs a drag, but it does not state whether clicking waits for stability, whether it can navigate or submit, or what happens on failure. This is partial disclosure for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Three tight sentences with no waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, the alternative follows immediately, and the coordinate/drag fallback is efficiently packed into the final sentence.

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 an 11-parameter, nested-object tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, names the main alternative, and addresses the special canvas/map/game case. It could say more about side effects and failure modes given the absence of annotations, but the structured schema carries most parameter detail.

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 high (82%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful meaning beyond the schema: x,y are CSS pixels from a screenshot, dragTo performs press-move-release, and ref comes from the latest snapshot. It leaves detailed semantics for find, expect, real, tabId, and spaceId to the schema, which is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Click ONE element by ref') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling `act`. It also carves out the canvas/map/game case with x,y coordinates, so an agent can tell what this tool is for without opening the schema.

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?

Names the alternative `act` and gives the condition for using it ('Know your next step already?'). It also specifies when to pass x,y instead of ref. Both the primary and fallback usage paths are explicit.

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