click

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add a useful behavioral detail: 'Auto JS-fallback for overlays.' However, it does not mention side effects such as navigation, dialog handling, waiting behavior, or return values, which are relevant for a mutation-like action.

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 two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The primary action and a key behavioral fallback are stated efficiently, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple click tool, the description covers the core input (ref from snapshot) and one behavioral detail, but it omits explanation of optional parameters, possible side effects, and return behavior. Without annotations or an output schema, this is adequate but not fully complete for robust tool selection and invocation.

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 only 33%, with only 'ref' documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about the 'button' or 'dblclick' parameters, which are left to their enum/default values and names. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 verb ('Click'), the resource ('element by ref ID'), and the source ('from browser_snapshot'). This directly distinguishes it from siblings like click_text, click_role, and mouse_click_xy, which use different selection mechanisms.

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 implies the prerequisite of having a ref from a browser_snapshot, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like click_text, click_role, or mouse_click_xy, nor does it provide any when-not-to-use guidance. The usage context is clear but the comparison to siblings is left to inference.

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