click

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that clicking may trigger navigation, form submission, or dynamic changes, and returns post-action page_state. It mentions the 'widen' parameter for full-page diff. This provides adequate transparency for a click action.

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 sentences: first states action, second details effects, third gives usage guidance. No redundancy, every sentence earns its place.

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?

No output schema, but description mentions return value (post-action page_state). Covers main parameters and their use. Could be slightly more explicit about waiting behavior, but generally complete for a click tool.

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%, but description adds value by summarizing the two targeting modes, explaining mutual exclusivity, and highlighting use cases (SPA, modals). It clarifies the function of 'region' and 'role' beyond their schema 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 clearly states the action: 'Click on a page element'. It specifies multiple targeting methods (CSS selector, @eN reference, visible label text) and mentions possible outcomes (navigation, form submission, dynamic content changes). This distinguishes it from siblings like click_at (coordinate-based) and hover.

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?

Provides clear guidance: 'Use selector for CSS/ref-based targeting; use text...' and gives context (SPA admin UIs, modals). However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like click_at or hover, missing 'when not to use' guidance.

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