ui_click

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that events are synthesized to mimic a real user and that the call blocks for settle_ms before returning, but says nothing about failure behavior (element not found, ambiguous query match), foreground/focus requirements, or what side effects a click may trigger.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and targeting modes, then the optional variations. No filler and no repetition of the tool name.

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 an 11-parameter, zero-required, mutation-style tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the primary targeting intent but omits precedence rules when multiple selectors are supplied and omits any return/error semantics. Adequate but clearly short of complete.

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 coverage is 64%, so the schema documents most parameters itself. The description adds the meaningful conceptual grouping (target by ref, by query, or by raw coordinates) and flags the button/double/modifier variations, but adds nothing for force, index, window, or settle_ms beyond what the schema already explains.

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 concrete verb ('Click') plus the three targeting modes (ref, query, x/y coordinates) and the supported variations (button, double, modifiers). It clearly separates itself from ui_drag and ui_hover by naming the interaction type, but never contrasts with ui_invoke, the sibling most likely to be confused with a click.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Click like a real user (synthesized mouse events)', suggesting it belongs when real input events are needed rather than a programmatic action. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not and no named alternative such as ui_invoke, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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