Click in exercise

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It usefully discloses the coordinate source and a verify-after loop, which is real behavioral guidance, but says nothing about what happens on a failed click, whether the action is immediate/irreversible, or what the coordinate space actually is.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the applicability, then the verification step. Every sentence adds information; nothing is redundant.

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 mutation-style tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the practical workflow end to end: obtain coordinates, click/drag, re-screenshot to verify. Only failure/rejection semantics and the optional drag parameter behavior are missing.

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 only 20% (just `ref`), so the description has to compensate. It does clarify that x/y are page coordinates sourced from beook_screenshot and that drag is an option, but it never explains the drag_to_x/drag_to_y pairing, units, or whether a drag requires both optional params.

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 action (click or drag) against a specific resource (page coordinates in an exercise), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It is distinguishable from siblings like beook_fill_answers and beook_screenshot, though it never explicitly names those alternatives as the 'wrong' choice.

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?

"For drawing, arrow and image exercises" scopes when to use it versus the answer-filling tool, and "Take a new screenshot afterwards to check" prescribes a follow-up step. It gives clear context and an explicit prerequisite (coordinates from beook_screenshot), but no explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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