mouse_double_click

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds the behavioral detail that it acts on the current position when coordinates are omitted, and that it returns a confirmation string. It does not disclose details like double-click timing or what happens on invalid coordinates, but for a simple mouse action this is acceptable.

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 and front-loaded: a clear one-sentence summary followed by Args/Returns. No word is wasted, though the Hungarian phrasing and vague 'Megerosites' slightly reduce accessibility.

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 mouse action with a nested schema and an output schema, the description covers the core behavior, current-position fallback, and return type. It does not explain when to use it or edge cases, but combined with the schema it provides enough 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?

The description merely lists 'params (MouseClickInput): button, x, y' without explaining their semantics. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description fails to compensate by providing meaning for the parameters; meaningful details are only found in the nested schema property descriptions.

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 states a specific action ('dupla kattintas' / double-click) on a clear target (specified or current position). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mouse_click and mouse_scroll, so an agent can tell exactly what operation it performs.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb and the tool name, but the description gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this over mouse_click or mouse_scroll, nor does it state any exclusions. An agent can infer the use case from context, but there is no direct routing.

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