browser_act_click

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the prerequisite escalation requirement, the action's purpose (clicking), and what the return value represents ('Observed changes after the click (NOT success/failure)'). It doesn't mention potential side effects like navigation or errors, but covers essential operational context.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the core purpose is stated first, followed by prerequisites, parameters, and returns in a structured format. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy.

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 (action with prerequisites), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, prerequisites, and parameter context, but could benefit from more behavioral details like error conditions or click consequences.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning beyond the bare schema by explaining the 'reason' parameter ('Justification for why this click is necessary') and clarifying that 'selector' is a 'CSS selector'. However, it doesn't detail 'session' semantics or provide examples, leaving some gaps.

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 an element on the page') and resource ('element'), distinguishing it from siblings like browser_act_type (typing) or browser_inspect_* tools (inspection). It uses a precise verb+resource combination that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('REQUIRES: Session must be escalated first via browser_session_escalate'), providing clear prerequisites. It also implies when not to use it (e.g., for non-click actions like typing or inspection), though alternatives aren't named, the context is sufficient given the sibling tools list.

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