desktop_mouse_click

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Click') but does not describe what happens after the click (e.g., whether it triggers UI events, if it's blocking, or potential side effects like focus changes). It lacks details on permissions, error conditions, or interaction constraints, leaving significant gaps for a tool that performs a physical action.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Click at screen coordinates'), making it easy to understand at a glance. Every part of the sentence contributes essential information.

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 moderate complexity (performing a physical mouse action) and no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral details (e.g., what 'click' entails, error handling) and usage context. It is complete enough to understand the tool's intent but insufficient for safe or effective use without additional inference.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the schema fully documents all parameters (x, y, button, clickCount). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying coordinate-based clicking, which is already clear from the schema. This meets the baseline score of 3 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 specific action ('Click at screen coordinates') and resource ('using the mouse'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'desktop_mouse_move' (which moves without clicking) and 'browser_click' (which is browser-specific). It precisely conveys the tool's function without redundancy.

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. It does not mention when to prefer 'desktop_mouse_click' over 'browser_click' (for desktop vs. browser contexts) or 'desktop_keyboard_hotkey' (for keyboard shortcuts), nor does it specify prerequisites like needing mouse control or screen access.

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