click_element

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the server auto-guards using windowTitle (verifies identity, foreground, modal) and returns post.perception.status. It mentions caveats about InvokePattern requirement and fallback. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is destructive or read-only, though context implies it is safe.

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 moderately sized but each sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, then safety guards, usage recommendations, and caveats. There is no redundant or unnecessary information, and it flows logically.

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 (9 parameters, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context: it explains the return value (post.perception.status), interaction with sibling tools (desktop_discover, mouse_click), and conditions for use. It covers most aspects needed for correct tool selection and invocation.

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?

Input schema provides descriptions for all 9 parameters (100% coverage). The description adds extra context beyond schema, e.g., explaining the role of fixId for re-targeting, lensId for advanced pinned-lens use, and the guard mechanics. This adds value without contradicting the schema.

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 that the tool invokes a UI element by name or automationId via UIA InvokePattern without screen coordinates. It distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'mouse_click' by specifying it is preferred for buttons, menu items, and links in native Windows apps.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool (prefer over mouse_click for specified elements), when not to use (requires InvokePattern; fall back to mouse_click if missing), and recommends using 'desktop_discover' first to discover automationIds. It also mentions using fixId for re-targeting after window identity drift.

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