Renforge Click Element

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral weight, and it does add real value: stale-frame guarding, the received_by return on hit-point contention, and correlated business-event waiting. However, it omits important failure modes such as what happens when no matching control exists or how visibility is determined, so disclosure is partial.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by two compact sentences on return behavior and the effect-waiting option. No wasted words, though the phrasing is slightly dense.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be detailed, and the description wisely avoids that. But for a 9-parameter mutation-style tool with zero annotation coverage and 0% schema coverage, key behaviors and parameter meanings remain missing, so completeness is only adequate.

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% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate, yet it only touches text/id, wait_for_effect, and the frame guard. screen, exact, interaction_id, effect_timeout, and project_path are left entirely unexplained, leaving most parameter meaning undefined.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Click a visible control by text/id') and disambiguates the target strategy from coordinate-based siblings, making the intent clear. It does not explicitly name alternatives like click_at or hover_element, so it stops short of a full 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?

It gives a conditional hint for wait_for_effect but never states when to choose this tool over renforge_click_at, renforge_hover_element, or renforge_select_choice, nor any prerequisites for use. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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