humanize_click

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does disclose the distinctive trait: a 3-step Bezier-like curve before the click. It also signals the humanized nature, which implies movement or delay that standard clicks lack. It does not detail side effects, but for a click tool that is largely inherent.

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?

Two sentences with no filler; the key behavior and use case are front-loaded. Every phrase contributes, making it easy to scan.

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 small two-parameter click tool, the description covers what it does, how it behaves, and when to use it. It omits return-value details, but no output schema exists and the result of a click is generally understood. The only notable gap is not clarifying parameter precedence, but that does not undermine the overall completeness.

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 the baseline is 3; the description adds no parameter-specific detail. It does not clarify whether ref and selector are alternatives or whether one is required, but the schema already documents each field. This is adequate but leaves the required-args ambiguity unresolved.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Click element') and specifies the distinguishing behavior: a humanized mouse approach with a 3-step Bezier-like curve. It also names the intended use case (anti-bot pages), which separates it from generic click tools. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly says 'Use for anti-bot pages,' which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate. It does not name alternatives or state exclusions, but the targeted context is clear enough to route away from standard click tools.

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