mouse_click_xy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does add one useful trait: steps>0 produces interpolated, human-like pre-movement, which is meaningful behavioral context. However, critical behaviors are undisclosed, including whether coordinates are viewport-relative or page-relative (which changes with scroll position), whether the physical cursor visibly moves, and what side effects the click can trigger.

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 zero filler: the core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second adds the only significant behavioral qualifier. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is operationally thin. It leaves the agent guessing about the coordinate frame, whether scrolling is needed first, when to prefer this over element-based click tools, and what the tool returns, all of which matter for correct 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 25%, with x, y, and button undocumented in the schema. The description partially compensates by framing x,y as "exact" coordinates, but it does not specify the coordinate origin or units, and it adds nothing for the button parameter. The steps explanation largely duplicates the schema's own description of interpolation.

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?

"Click at exact x,y coordinates" states a specific verb, a precise resource, and the distinguishing feature (exact pixel coordinates) that separates this from element-based siblings like click, click_text, and click_role. The "exact" modifier signals precision targeting, making the tool's role unambiguous even without opening the schema.

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 human-like pre-movement note implies the tool is appropriate for anti-detection or natural-input scenarios, and "exact x,y coordinates" implies use when pixel positions are known rather than selectors. However, no alternative tool is named and no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, leaving routing among mouse_click_xy, click, mouse_move, click_element_offset, and humanize_click to inference.

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