click

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does add important context: it waits until the target is visible, enabled, and not covered, and force bypasses that. However, it omits other relevant behavior such as scrolling into view, timeout handling, and failure modes.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the key wait/force behavior. There is no wasted phrasing.

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?

The description covers the central click semantics and the important wait/force distinction, which is useful for an 8-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema. It remains incomplete regarding several parameters and error/timeout behavior.

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 50%, and the description adds meaning for x, y, and force. It does not explain ref, selector, tab, timeout, or request_timeout, so several parameters still rely on sparse schema descriptions or no description at all.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: click an element or a viewport point via x,y. It clearly distinguishes element-based clicking from coordinate-based clicking, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling interaction tools such as hover or fill.

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 explains what click does but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like hover, fill, or type. The only conditional guidance is that force skips the visibility/enabled/coverage wait, without saying when that is appropriate.

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