browser_click_ref

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one real behavior: the call returns the updated snapshot, letting the agent plan a click-then-read loop in a single call. However, it says nothing about stale/invalid ref handling, whether it waits for navigation, or how timeout_ms failure surfaces — meaningful gaps for a click tool.

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?

One sentence, zero filler, front-loaded with the action and followed by the dependency and return behavior. It is tight, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than pure efficiency.

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?

An output schema exists so the returned snapshot need not be re-explained, which offsets some burden. But with no annotations, three undocumented parameters, and no error/staleness semantics, the definition is not complete enough for an agent to invoke this reliably in edge cases.

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% across four parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It clarifies only that ref comes from browser_snapshot; observe (enum none/compact/full), session_id, and timeout_ms are left entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 specific verb (click) plus the resource (an element ref) and names its upstream dependency, browser_snapshot, as the source of valid refs. That distinguishes it from sibling click-adjacent tools like browser_set_value_ref or browser_type_text_ref, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 rather than stated: the agent learns it must obtain the ref from browser_snapshot first. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over browser_find_text, browser_wait_for, or the other ref-based setters, and no stated preconditions (e.g. an active session).

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