playwright_click

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action ('click') but lacks behavioral details: it doesn't specify if this waits for the element to be clickable, handles errors (e.g., if selector not found), requires page interaction permissions, or has side effects (e.g., navigation). The description is minimal and misses key 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core action ('Click an element') and method ('using CSS selector'), making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place 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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple but action-oriented tool (clicking can trigger navigation or errors), the description is incomplete. It lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., page must be loaded), error handling, behavioral traits (e.g., waiting), or output expectations. For a tool with potential side effects, this is inadequate.

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 100%, with the parameter 'selector' fully documented in the schema as 'CSS selector for element to click'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as selector syntax examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 action ('click') and target ('element on the page'), and specifies the method ('using CSS selector'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like playwright_click_text (which clicks by text) and playwright_fill (which fills inputs). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, such as playwright_evaluate or playwright_navigate.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a page loaded), exclusions (e.g., not for non-interactive elements), or comparisons to siblings like playwright_click_text (CSS selector vs. text matching). Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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