click

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it reveals nothing about behavior: whether this is a left/right click, whether it moves the pointer, whether it waits for navigation, or what happens on failure. For an input-simulating action with zero annotation coverage this is a meaningful gap.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler and the action front-loaded. It is efficient, though being only one line it leaves no room for the clarifying details noted above.

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 simple two-parameter primitive with no output schema, the basics are covered. However, the coordinate space, click semantics, and success/failure signal are absent, leaving the agent unsure how to invoke it reliably in a browser context.

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?

Both parameters are documented in the schema at 100% coverage ('X coordinate', 'Y coordinate'), so the schema does the heavy lifting and 3 is the baseline. The description adds no extra meaning, such as the coordinate reference frame (screen vs. viewport) or units.

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 the resource it acts on ('the specified screen coordinates'), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like type, scroll, and screenshot. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, so it does not reach the top band.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no preconditions (e.g. window focus, element visibility), and never references alternatives such as type or scroll. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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