browser_click

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

Annotations already provide significant behavioral information: readOnlyHint=false (mutation), openWorldHint=true (dynamic environment), and destructiveHint=true (potentially changes state). The description adds minimal context beyond this - it confirms the action is a click but doesn't elaborate on what gets destroyed, potential side effects, or rate limits. The description doesn't contradict annotations, but adds little value beyond what annotations already declare.

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 extremely concise at just 5 words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and immediately states what the tool does. Every word earns its place, making this description highly efficient despite its brevity.

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 destructive tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after a click (navigation, form submission, etc.), error conditions, or return values. The annotations help but don't compensate for the lack of behavioral context in the description itself. Given the complexity of browser interactions, more guidance is needed.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, all parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics - it doesn't explain the relationship between 'element' and 'ref', when to use doubleClick, or practical examples of modifier usage. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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 ('perform click') and resource ('on a web page'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from similar sibling tools like browser_press_key or browser_select_option, which also involve user interactions on web pages. The description is specific but lacks sibling 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when clicking is appropriate compared to other interaction methods like typing, hovering, or selecting options. There's no indication of prerequisites (e.g., needing a page snapshot first) or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal context for tool selection.

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