browser_click

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

The description does not contradict the 'destructiveHint: true' annotation, which implies clicking may cause navigation or state changes. However, it does not elaborate on what makes a click destructive (e.g., navigating away, opening dialogs, submitting forms). With annotations already covering 'readOnlyHint: false', the description adds minimal behavioral context.

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?

At 5 words, the description is very concise. However, it could be front-loaded better with a brief usage hint (e.g., 'Click on the specified element to trigger navigation or interaction'). Every word is necessary but the sentence is underinformative.

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?

Given the complexity (5 parameters including a required target, optional modifiers, doubleClick, button, and element), and the absence of an output schema, the description should explain return behavior (e.g., whether navigation is waited for, if errors like missing element are returned). With 100% schema coverage and destructiveHint annotation, the description is too sparse for an agent to safely invoke this tool.

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?

The input schema covers all 5 parameters (100% coverage) with detailed descriptions for each. The tool description adds value by implying the workflow context (preceding 'browser_snapshot'), but the schema already explains 'target', 'button', 'modifiers', 'doubleClick', and 'element' well. The description could mention the relationship between 'target' and 'element' 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'click' and the resource 'web page', and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'browser_hover', 'browser_type', 'browser_press_key', and 'browser_drop'. It could be more specific by mentioning that clicking triggers navigation or UI interactions.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'browser_hover' (for hovering) or 'browser_fill_form' (for form submission). It does not mention prerequisites like needing a page snapshot or that clicks may fail if the element is not visible.

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