browser_click

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing auto-wait semantics (waits for the element to appear, to stop moving, and for any navigation it triggers) and a concrete failure contract: it errors and names the element that covers the target. Not stated are timeout limits or whether retries occur, which would complete the behavioral picture for an open-world action.

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?

A single dense sentence with the action front-loaded and the waiting/failure behavior trailing as qualifiers. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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 mutation tool flagged readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true with no output schema, the description covers the important risk surface: occlusion failure, motion settling, and navigation side effects. Missing timeout/retry expectations and the return-shape caveat (the snapshot parameter handles the latter) are the only gaps.

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 100%, so each of the five parameters (ref, text, selector, button, snapshot) is already documented including the right-click context-menu nuance. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema carries that load.

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 ('click') and resource ('an element') and qualifies the mechanism ('real mouse event'), which distinguishes it from browser_fill, browser_type, and browser_select_option. It does not explicitly name a sibling or boundary against browser_mouse or browser_press_key, so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied by the mechanics (element must exist, must be visible/unoccluded, navigation is awaited) but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to alternatives like browser_mouse for coordinate clicks or browser_press_key for keyboard activation.

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