pulse_browser_click

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses two important traits: the expected-screen precondition and the authorization requirement for write/irreversible controls, but it omits what happens on mismatch, how authorization is validated, and whether the click has immediate side effects.

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 two tightly written sentences with the key precondition front-loaded. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is under-specified. It covers the main safety idea but leaves critical operational details undocumented, including parameter roles, failure behavior, and authorization mechanics.

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% across six parameters, so the description must compensate. It only indirectly touches expected_screen and authorized_effects through 'expected map state' and 'explicit authorization'; it says nothing useful about anchor_id, app_id, port, or target_url.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Click a mapped browser control.' It clearly distinguishes a browser control click from generic desktop/click siblings, though it does not explicitly name alternatives such as pulse_desktop_click.

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?

It states a clear precondition: use only when the current screen still matches the expected map state. It also notes that write and irreversible controls require explicit authorization, but it does not name alternative tools or explain what to do when the precondition fails.

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