Browser Click

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses one behavioral trait: human-like mouse movement when humanization is enabled. But it does not mention other important behaviors such as auto-scrolling into view, waiting for load, error handling on missing ref, or any side effects. The disclosure adds some value but is far from complete.

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, front-loaded with the main action and target, followed by a relevant behavioral note. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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?

The description is insufficient for a 5-parameter tool with zero annotations and no parameter documentation. It leaves unaddressed the purpose and valid values of four parameters, how to obtain a ref (only implied via 'snapshot'), and what happens on failure. An output schema exists but is not visible to the agent, so it cannot compensate.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains 'ref' with an example and leaves 'tab', 'button', 'double', and 'session' entirely unexplained. While names suggest meaning, the agent gets no explicit guidance on how these parameters affect behavior, making it hard to invoke correctly for non-default cases.

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 action ('Click') with a precise target ('element by its ref from the snapshot') and gives a concrete example ('e12'). This differentiates it from siblings like browser_click_text (click by text) and browser_hover (hover), so the agent immediately knows what this tool does.

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 implies the primary use case: clicking an element identified by a snapshot ref. However, it does not explicitly explain when to prefer this over browser_click_text, nor any exclusions (e.g., when the element is off-screen or lacks a ref). The context of using a ref from a snapshot is clear but not contrasted with alternatives.

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