browser_mouse_click_xy

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutation. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the schema: it doesn't explain coordinate system (viewport vs page), whether the click triggers JavaScript events, or what happens if coordinates are out of bounds. With annotations present, the description still falls short of providing useful behavioral depth.

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, clear sentence with no extraneous words. Every word is meaningful and immediately conveys the tool's core action.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, 5 parameters fully covered in schema, and useful annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks orientation (e.g., coordinate system), does not mention the default button or the effect of delay/clickCount, and provides no output expectations. A 3 reflects that edge-case context 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%, so all 5 parameters are documented in the input schema. The description ('at a given position') aligns with the required parameters x and y but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Click') and resource ('mouse button') with a clear location ('at a given position'), effectively differentiating from sibling tools like 'browser_click' (which clicks on an element) and 'browser_mouse_move_xy' (only moves).

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 (e.g., browser_click, browser_mouse_down). It lacks instructions on when a raw coordinate click is appropriate or what prerequisites (e.g., page loaded, element at coordinates) exist. Sibling tools with overlapping functionality are not mentioned.

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