browser_click

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states only that a click is performed, but omits any side effects such as page navigation, waiting for elements, scrolling into view, or failure behavior. It also does not indicate whether the click is synchronous or whether it returns any confirmation. This is a significant gap for a browser automation tool.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and identification methods, immediately followed by the recommendation to prefer `ref`. There is no filler or redundancy; every word earns its place. It is concise without sacrificing essential detail.

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 browser interaction tool, the description is too thin. It does not mention post-click behavior (e.g., page load waiting, need to refresh snapshot), error handling, or whether the click is relative to the viewport. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description leaves the agent guessing about important execution details. It is adequate for a trivial click but incomplete for real-world automation scenarios.

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 schema lists four parameters with no descriptions (schema coverage 0%), so the description must compensate. It does so by clarifying that `ref`, `selector`, and (x, y) are alternative ways to identify the element, and explicitly recommends `ref` from browser_snapshot. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema by explaining the relationship between parameters and providing a priority hierarchy.

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) and the resource (an element), and specifies three distinct identification methods (snapshot ref, CSS selector, coordinates). It is unambiguous about what the tool does and naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like hover or type. The mention of preferring `ref` from browser_snapshot adds operational clarity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browser_hover or browser_type. The only usage hint is the preference for `ref` over other identifiers, but that is a parameter-selection hint, not a tool-selection criterion. There is no mention of scenarios where coordinates or selector might be preferable, nor any exclusions.

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