renforge_click_element

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides valuable details: returns 'received_by' when another control owns the hit point, and the 'wait_for_effect' behavior waits for correlated business events like 'quick_save.completed'. This goes beyond a generic click description, though it could mention failure modes or visibility checks more explicitly.

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?

Two concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the primary action and key constraint (stale frame). The second adds return behavior and the wait_for_effect option. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool is complex with 9 parameters and no annotation support. The description covers core behavior but omits explanations for several parameters (exact, screen, expected_frame_id, interaction_id) and does not address output schema semantics or error handling. This is incomplete for an agent to fully use the tool confidently.

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 explain parameters. It only clarifies 'text'/'element_id' (by text/id) and 'wait_for_effect' (with correlated event). Parameters like 'exact', 'screen', 'expected_frame_id', 'interaction_id', and 'effect_timeout' are left unexplained, leaving the agent to guess their semantics.

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 tool's purpose: 'Click a visible control by text/id'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like renforge_click_at (which likely clicks coordinates) and renforge_hover_element. The mention of 'guarded against a stale frame' adds specificity to the tool's behavior.

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 when you want to click by text or id, and when you need stale-frame guarding, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or reference alternatives. It gives context ('By text/id', 'wait_for_effect') but lacks direct comparison with sibling tools.

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