click

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only discloses the button mapping and that the target is the VM's screen. It does not say whether the click is relative to the screen or the window, whether it requires the VM to be focused or running, or what side effects a right/middle click may have.

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, with the action front-loaded before the button enumeration. Nothing is wasted, though the extreme brevity contributes to the semantic gaps noted elsewhere.

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 not be described, but for a 4-parameter GUI automation action with zero annotations, the description omits prerequisites, coordinate frame, and focus behavior — the essentials an agent needs before invoking it.

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, yet it only explains 'button' (1=left, 2=middle, 3=right). The meaning and units of x/y (screen vs window coordinates, pixels) and the expected vm_name format are left entirely undocumented.

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 coordinate on the specified lume VM's screen), which is enough to tell it apart from type_text, key_press and screenshot by name alone. It stops short of explicitly naming how it relates to those siblings, but the purpose 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?

No guidance on when to prefer this over key_press or type_text, no prerequisites such as the VM needing to be running or the window needing focus, and no note on when a coordinate click is the wrong approach. The agent must infer all usage context.

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