ax_click

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: no coordinates, no cursor movement, app need not be frontmost, and ambiguous matches fail closed. It does not mention required accessibility permissions or what a successful call returns/reports, which are meaningful remaining gaps for a UI-automation tool.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the mechanism and the key routing warning; each sentence carries distinct information (mechanism, matching semantics, failure mode, alternative). Dense with backticked identifiers but no filler.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool with no annotations, the description covers mechanism, matching semantics, failure behavior, and sibling routing. The main omission is any hint of the return value or post-action confirmation, minor given the absence of an output schema.

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% and the single parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description restates the matching rule and adds the useful 'ambiguous matches fail closed' constraint, but contributes little parameter detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 action (click/query against an element) and the underlying mechanism (macOS Accessibility / Windows UI Automation), and explicitly names the preferred alternatives (ax_read + ax_activate). The phrase 'legacy query action' is slightly loose about what the action does (a click), but the surrounding sentences make the semantics clear.

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?

Gives a clear negative directive — prefer fresh ax_read + ax_activate for exact, generation-safe actions — which frames this as the legacy fallback path. It also notes when it is appropriate (background operation, no coordinates/cursor). No explicit statement of when the legacy path is the *only* option, but the routing intent is unambiguous.

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