browser_os_click_ref

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the real OS event nature, coordinate computation, window raising, exact vs approximate behavior on Firefox/Chrome, iframe limitations, macOS dependency, and the need for cliclick + Accessibility. This is thorough and goes beyond what the schema offers.

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 compact but dense. Each sentence adds value: purpose, method, platform specifics, prerequisites. It's front-loaded with the core use case. Slightly longer than needed but no fluff.

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 complexity (real OS click, platform differences, external dependencies), it covers the essential context: why use it, limitations, prerequisites. It doesn't describe return values or error conditions, but no output schema exists. Overall, it's fairly complete for a niche tool.

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 coverage is only 25% (only allowApproximate has a description). The description adds context for allowApproximate (explains why approximate and when to set it) but gives no meaning for ref, count, or button. Since these parameters are undocumented in both schema and description, the description fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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?

States a specific verb (Click), resource (page element by ref), and method (REAL, OS-trusted mouse event). Clearly distinguishes from synthetic clicks and implies why this tool exists. It also names platform-specific behavior, which sharpens the purpose.

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?

Explicitly says when to use: for elements that ignore synthetic clicks, and notes macOS-only with cliclick + Accessibility permission. It doesn't name the alternative (browser_click) but strongly implies it. It also gives a condition for Chrome (approximate coords, must set allowApproximate) and warns about iframes.

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