safari_click

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the click mechanism (PointerEvent+MouseEvent sequence + React Fiber fallback) and that it's pure JS (no mouse movement), but omits common behavioral details like scrolling into view, error handling for missing elements, or return value.

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?

Three sentences front-load the purpose and key usage caution. No redundant information; every sentence adds value.

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?

Missing return value description (no output schema) and common click behaviors like waiting for element. But adequately covers targeting methods and ref expiration.

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 100% with parameter descriptions. The description adds value by grouping parameters as alternatives and noting ref expiration, which is not in 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?

The description clearly states it clicks an element and lists identification methods (ref, selector, text, x/y). It distinguishes from native click by noting 'Pure JS — never touches user's mouse', but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like safari_click_and_read.

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 provides guidance on when to use ref (requires fresh snapshot) and lists alternative targeting methods, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives like safari_click_and_read or safari_native_click.

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