zerodom_click_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the diff notation (`+`, `-`, `~`) and the key navigation exception where a full graph is returned. It does not discuss side effects or prerequisites, but the verb 'Click' makes the mutating nature reasonably clear.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core action and result. The rationale for returning a diff instead of re-listing the page is useful context, and the navigation renumbering exception is an important edge case that earns its place.

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?

The output schema covers the return shape, so the description does not need to re-explain it. It does explain the diff versus full-graph behavior. However, because annotations are absent, a brief note about prerequisites—such as needing an already-loaded/parsed page—would make the tool more safely invocable.

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 only parameter, node_id, is not explained beyond the schema title. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate, but it never specifies what node_id refers to, how to obtain it, or any format requirements—only 'Click a node' implies its role.

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 states a specific action ('Click a node') and its result ('return what changed on the page'), which clearly separates it from read-oriented siblings like zerodom_read_page and zerodom_find. The return-diff behavior is also stated up front.

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: if you want to click a node and see page changes, this is the tool. However, it does not name alternatives or state when NOT to use it, such as preferring zerodom_fill_node for form inputs or zerodom_read_page for plain inspection.

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