click

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden: it discloses potential side effects (navigation, form submission, dynamic content changes) and states the return value ('post-action page_state'). It also explains the 'widen' parameter's effect. Could mention scroll-into-view behavior, but overall satisfactory.

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 two sentences: first states the core action and targeting methods, second provides usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the action, parameter usage, side effects, and return value. It does not explain error behavior (e.g., missing element), but is otherwise sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining parameter usage concretely (e.g., 'Use selector for CSS/ref-based targeting') and describing the role and region parameters, which goes beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Click') and resource ('a page element'), then details two distinct targeting methods (CSS selector/@eN reference vs visible label text), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'click_at' that use coordinates.

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 advises when to use 'selector' vs 'text' with roles and regions, and notes that text-based targeting is useful for SPAs and modals. It does not, however, contrast with sibling tools like 'click_at' or 'hover', so some usage guidance is implicit.

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