browser_click

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations. Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true (modifies page state) and readOnlyHint=false (not read-only), which aligns with 'perform click' implying interaction. However, the description doesn't elaborate on what 'perform click' entails (e.g., triggering events, navigation) or mention potential side effects like page changes, which would be valuable given the destructive nature. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 with a single sentence ('Perform click on a web page'), which is front-loaded and wastes no words. Every part of the sentence directly contributes to understanding the tool's purpose without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity (destructive interaction with 5 parameters) and lack of output schema, the description is minimally adequate. Annotations cover safety aspects (destructive, not read-only), but the description doesn't address return values or error conditions. For a tool that modifies page state, more context on outcomes would be beneficial, though annotations provide some baseline.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond the schema's details (e.g., element and ref requirements, button options). It doesn't explain why both element and ref are needed or how they interact, leaving the schema to carry the full burden.

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. It distinguishes itself from siblings like browser_hover, browser_press_key, and browser_drag by specifying clicking rather than hovering, typing, or dragging. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., browser_select_option might also involve clicking).

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 to choose click over other interaction methods like browser_type or browser_press_key, nor does it specify prerequisites (e.g., needing a page snapshot first). The context is implied but not explicitly stated.

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