browser_click

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden. It discloses the input mechanism (trusted events), the return value (updated snapshot), and a genuinely valuable prompt-injection warning about untrusted page content. However it says nothing about the consequences of the click itself (possible navigation, writes, or irreversible actions) or failure behavior, which matters for a clicking tool.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and targeting options, ending with the safety note. Every sentence conveys distinct information with no padding.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers targeting, click variants, modifiers, and the return value, which is most of what an agent needs. It is only slightly thin on post-click side effects and error handling.

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 75%, and the description usefully names the concepts behind the two undocumented params: right/middle click maps to 'button' and 'double click' maps to 'doubleClick'. It also reinforces the ref vs x/y distinction and notes the snapshot return. It adds real meaning beyond the schema.

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) plus the two targeting modes (element ref or x/y), and clarifies it uses real trusted mouse input. This cleanly separates it from browser_hover, but it never names a sibling explicitly, which is why it falls short of 5.

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?

Gives clear context on the two invocation paths ('an element ref from the snapshot, or x/y from a screenshot'), which helps the agent choose how to target. It stops short of stating exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions.

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