mouse_click

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the action (click), the target (mouse button), the location (current position), and the schema documents default button behavior. It does not detail press/release mechanics or side effects, but for a primitive mouse action this is sufficient.

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 efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and immediately clarifies the positional constraint, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essential behavior: click, which button, and where. It does not mention the dependence on prior mouse positioning or potential UI side effects, but these are reasonable inferences from 'at current position.'

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a clear enum and default for the only parameter, so the schema already handles parameter meaning. The description adds no additional parameter detail beyond the schema, but the schema is explicit enough that no compensation is needed.

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 uses a clear verb ('click') and specific resource ('mouse button') plus the crucial qualifier 'at current position,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like mouse_move and keyboard_type. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and when it applies.

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 phrase 'at current position' implies that the mouse must already be positioned correctly, suggesting mouse_move is a prerequisite, but this is not stated explicitly. No alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, though the context is clear enough for a simple tool.

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