click

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries a lower burden. Adding that this is a fallback path (non-CDP) is useful context, but the description does not say what happens when the coordinates fall outside the screen or what the call returns.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence pairs the action with the coordinate semantics and ends with the mode restriction. Nothing is redundant, and the content reads in the right order.

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 a three-parameter UI action with annotations and no output schema, the essentials are present: what it does, where it acts, and when it applies. The gaps are the button parameter semantics and any error or out-of-bounds behavior.

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 schema descriptions cover 0% of the parameters, but the description usefully clarifies that x and y are absolute screen coordinates, not window-relative coordinates. It says nothing about the button parameter or its default, so it only partly compensates for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific action (dispatch a mouse click) and a specific target (absolute screen coordinates), so it is distinguishable from reporting-type siblings. It does not name minimax_click_text, the nearest sibling that clicks by text, so it falls short of full discrimination.

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 clause 'only used in non-CDP fallback mode' gives a real precondition for use. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as clicking by text or using CDP mode, so the guidance remains implied rather than spelled out.

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