perch_click

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state whether the tool waits for the element to appear, scrolls it into view, what happens on timeout, or whether the click fails silently. For an action tool with zero annotation coverage this is a meaningful gap.

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?

Two compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The selector syntax note is mildly redundant with the schema, keeping it just below the top score.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the interaction contract — waiting/retry behavior, failure modes, and what the preview vs editor frame distinction means in practice. It supplies none of that, leaving an agent to guess how a click resolves.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description largely restates the schema's selector note ('CSS selector or text=...'), adding only a fuller visible-text example; nth, frame, and timeout are left entirely to the schema.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Click an element in the live preview (or editor chrome).' An agent can distinguish this from siblings like perch_type or perch_press. It doesn't name those siblings explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 parenthetical '(or editor chrome)' implies the two target contexts, but there is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. page must be loaded/started), and no routing to alternatives such as perch_type for text entry or perch_press for keys.

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