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 adds a meaningful implementation detail ('trusted CDP click with DOM fallback') and explains the supported locator types, but it does not disclose side effects such as navigation, waiting behavior, or failure modes after the click.

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 definition is a single efficient sentence with the action and locator options front-loaded and the implementation note placed at the end. Every phrase adds value, and there is no filler or repetition of schema-visible information.

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 tool with seven parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation path but omits important operating details such as the meaning of scope, precedence among locator options, and whether clicking waits for navigation or page load. It supports basic use well but is incomplete for advanced or edge-case calls.

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 description maps three of the seven parameters to concrete locator modes (selector, by_text, ref) and clarifies through the word 'or' that they are alternatives. However, with 0% schema description coverage, it leaves scope, button, trusted, and double_click unexplained, so it only partially compensates for the missing parameter documentation.

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 names the action ('Click') and the resource ('an element'), and it specifies three distinct ways to identify the target: selector, visible text, or ref_N from read_page. This is specific and unambiguous, and it distinguishes the tool from siblings like hover, type, and focus_element.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: whenever an element needs to be clicked and can be located by selector, visible text, or a ref from read_page. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the usage context is strong enough to guide tool selection.

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