browser_click

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'click element' without revealing any side effects (e.g., potential navigation, page state changes, waiting behavior, or failure modes). The agent is left unaware of what happens after the click or any requirements such as element visibility.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the action and selector types effectively. While it is minimal, it avoids verbosity and is efficient for such a simple operation, though it could afford a bit more context without becoming bloated.

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?

Although the tool is simple (2 params, no output schema), the description is too bare to be contextually complete. It fails to mention when to use it (vs siblings), any necessary preparation (like a snapshot), or potential outcomes of the click. For an agent choosing among many browser_* tools, this lack of context increases the chance of inappropriate selection.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, with both parameters already described ('Session name' and 'CSS selector or @ref from snapshot'). The description adds no new information beyond restating the schema's content, so it does not enhance parameter understanding beyond what the agent can already derive from 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?

The description states a clear verb 'click' and the target resource 'element', and explicitly mentions the two selector types ('selector' or '@ref'). It is specific enough to distinguish from tools with different verbs, but it doesn't differentiate from sibling actions that also operate on elements (e.g., browser_hover) beyond the verb itself.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser_hover, browser_select, or browser_fill. It does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., needing a snapshot first) or conditions that would make this the appropriate choice. The description is purely a statement of action without usage context.

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