click_button

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: it 'Waits for the resulting RPCs' and reports state changes, navigation, dialog open/close, notifications, and errors. It also flags `timeout` for long actions. This is more transparent than a generic click description, though it could mention prerequisites like visibility or permission.

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 core action is front-loaded and the whole description fits in a short paragraph. The run-on list of 'Also' targets and the tacked-on timeout note could be better structured, but there is no redundant 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?

The definition is moderately complete: accepted selectors, waiting/reporting behavior, and timeout are covered, and an output schema exists so return values need not be restated. However, `scope` remains unexplained and there is no guidance for resolving overlap with sibling tools, so context is not fully self-sufficient.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains `name` (technical name or label, with examples) and `timeout` (ms for long actions), but the `scope` parameter is never described. That is a significant gap for one of the three parameters.

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 concrete interaction ('Click a button') and identifies accepted selectors (technical name or label, with example `action_confirm`). The list of extra click targets makes the resource boundary clear, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like `click_row` or `action_menu`, so it misses the strongest differentiation.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool instead of siblings such as `click_row`, `open_menu`, or `action_menu`. The overlap is real (e.g. the description lists 'save' as a clickable label while a dedicated `save` tool exists), and no exclusions or decision criteria are provided.

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