ui_click

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers substantially: it discloses the waiting semantics (rendered, enabled, stopped moving, not covered), that it dispatches real trusted mouse events, what the click reports (requests fired, console errors, DOM changes), and the failure mode (which condition failed and what was in the way). It does not warn that trusted clicks can trigger navigation, dialogs, or state changes, which is a notable side-effect disclosure for a no-annotation tool.

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 dense sentences with the core action and identification front-loaded first, followed by the wait-and-report behavior and then the failure fallback. Every sentence earns its place — it is moderately long but contains no fluff or repetition of schema content.

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 12-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is unusually complete: it covers identification, clickability semantics, event fidelity, return information, and failure diagnostics. Remaining gaps are minor and schema-covered, such as frame-specific behavior and how the force parameter interacts with the clickability guarantee.

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 baseline of 3 applies — every one of the 12 parameters is already documented in the schema. The description adds some semantic framing by mapping 'CSS selector, visible text or test id' onto selector/text/testid and by defining 'clickable,' which gives meaning to timeout_ms, but it provides no syntax or format details beyond what the schema already contains.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Click an element, identified by CSS selector, visible text or test id' — which unambiguously states the action and the identification strategies. The additional detail on the clickability wait and outcome reporting further separates it from interaction siblings like ui_hover, ui_press, and ui_drag, even without naming them.

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?

Usage is implied rather than explicit: the tool is for clicking elements and waiting until they are truly actionable, which suggests it is the right choice for finicky click targets. However, with more than a dozen ui_* interaction siblings (hover, press, fill, type, select, check, drag, scroll, upload), the description gives no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance.

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