browser_click

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the prerequisite but does not disclose behavioral traits such as success/failure outcomes, navigation waits, or error handling. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the primary action, and the second provides the prerequisite. Efficiently front-loaded.

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 simple tool (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate for basic usage. It covers the prerequisite and action. However, lacks details on what happens after the click (e.g., page navigation, errors), which could be important for an agent.

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 both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the format of the ref or page_id. Baseline 3 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?

The description clearly states the tool clicks a page element using an ARIA snapshot reference (e.g., e42). It distinguishes from sibling tools like browser_snapshot (for obtaining snapshots) and browser_type (typing), making the specific action 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?

The description explicitly states the prerequisite: 'Must call browser_snapshot first to obtain the reference.' This guides when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, which slightly reduces clarity.

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