click_element_offset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explains the coordinate model (percentage position inside an element) and contrasts with center-clicking. However, it does not disclose how the element is targeted (ref vs selector), whether scrolling or waiting occurs, or what happens for invalid percentages.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and immediately gives relevant use cases. Every clause adds value with 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 tool has four parameters with no required fields, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must do more to make invocation unambiguous. It fails to explain the relationship and expected usage of ref versus selector, and does not cover edge behavior for coordinates. This makes correct selection and invocation less certain for an autonomous agent.

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 50%, and the description does not clarify the two undocumented parameters ref and selector. It adds conceptual meaning to x_percent and y_percent but relies on schema text for the boundary definitions. This leaves ambiguity about how to specify the target element.

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: clicking at a percentage position inside an element rather than its center. It also gives concrete examples (wide labels, sliders, split buttons) that convey the intended use case. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from related sibling tools like click_at_corner or mouse_click_xy.

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 clear usage context with real-world examples such as wide labels and sliders, which helps an agent know when this tool is appropriate. It lacks explicit exclusion guidance or named alternatives, but the context is sufficient for most cases.

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