browser_click

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It states the main behavior — open a URL, click an element, and return the resulting page after the click — and gives concrete element-selection modes. It does not disclose wait behavior, failure behavior, or what happens when multiple elements match, but the core observable behavior is clearly communicated.

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 compact, front-loads the main behavior, and uses an example to reduce ambiguity around Russian/English text matching. Every sentence contributes value and nothing is wasted.

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 the main workflow — opening a URL and clicking — it is sufficient: action, element-targeting options, return value, and an example are present. It is incomplete in smaller areas: max_links is unexplained, and there is no guidance on choosing this tool over the related session_click/browser_navigate siblings.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds useful meaning for selector, target_text, and ref, including the example ref="3" and link/button text. However, it completely omits max_links, leaving an optional parameter with no stated purpose or effect.

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 opens with a concrete verb+resource combination: it opens a URL and clicks on an element. It clearly explains that clicks can target a CSS selector, visible text, or a snapshot ref, which answers the core question of what the tool does. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like browser_navigate or session_click, so it stops slightly short of a 5.

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 example browser_click(url, target_text="Продолжить") implies the intended use: supply a URL and an element identifier to perform a one-shot click. It also shows that target_text can be used alone. However, it does not state when to prefer this over session_click, browser_navigate, or session-type tools, nor does it describe when clicking without prior navigation is expected.

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