Click an element

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 key behavior of clicking only the first visible element and the selector format, but does not mention waiting behavior, failure handling, or what 'visible' means. This is moderately informative but leaves some behavioral gaps.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that starts with the action and selector, then provides valuable examples. No extraneous words or repetition — every part earns its place.

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 one-parameter click tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and selector syntax well. It lacks details about error behavior (e.g., no matching element) and waiting, but given the tool's simplicity, it is nearly complete. The 'first visible' constraint is a useful nuance.

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 schema has zero description coverage for the 'selector' parameter. The description fully compensates by explaining that the parameter is a CSS selector and providing three illustrative examples, including a :has-text pseudo-selector. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Click') and the resource (the first visible element matching a CSS selector). It provides concrete examples of selector syntax, making it unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like browser_type or browser_press.

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 usage (for clicking elements) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like browser_type or browser_press. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance, but the examples help clarify the intended use case.

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