ui_click

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it declares SIDE EFFECTS (STATE_MUTATING) with a concrete mechanism (dispatches a click event) and a LIMITATION (target must exist in DOM). It stops short of describing failure behavior, whether it waits for the element, or whether it scrolls into view first.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then segmented into WHEN TO USE, SIDE EFFECTS, and LIMITATIONS labels. Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information with no filler.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the essential behavioral context (state mutation, DOM precondition) that structured fields lack. Minor gaps remain around post-click confirmation or expected failure modes, but nothing critical for invocation is 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 description coverage is 100% and the enum already documents the four selector strategies, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates the same strategies in the parenthetical list without adding format, matching rules, or precedence guidance, so baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb (Click) plus resource (TradingView DOM element) and names the selector strategies available. An agent can distinguish this from high-level interaction tools such as chart_set_symbol. However, it never explicitly distinguishes itself from close siblings like ui_mouse_click or ui_find_element, leaving the boundary to inference.

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?

Explicit WHEN TO USE clause: custom buttons, dropdowns, or navigation elements not covered by high-level tools. That gives a clear selection condition, but it names no specific alternative tool (e.g. ui_mouse_click for coordinates, ui_find_element for locating first) and states no exclusions.

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