browser_click

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which already signal this is a write operation that can change page state. The description adds no behavioral context beyond this, such as potential side effects (e.g., navigation, form submission) or error conditions. It doesn't contradict annotations, but offers minimal extra insight.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to scan and understand quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying the essential purpose.

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 tool's complexity (interactive, destructive) and lack of output schema, the description is minimal. It covers the basic action but omits details like return values, error handling, or dependencies on other tools (e.g., browser_snapshot for ref). With annotations providing safety cues, it's adequate but leaves gaps for effective use.

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 schema fully documents all parameters (doubleClick, element, ref). The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, such as explaining the relationship between element and ref or when to use doubleClick. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Perform click') and resource ('on a web page'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like browser_hover or browser_drag, which also involve element interactions, so it doesn't reach the highest score for sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention when to choose browser_click over browser_double_click (implied via parameter) or browser_hover, nor does it specify prerequisites like needing a browser session or element reference from browser_snapshot.

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