desktop_click

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it does flag the key trait: this performs a real OS-level click with real side effects, so the agent should verify the target first. It omits other behavior an agent needs: whether the target window must be focused first, whether the call blocks, what failure looks like, and what the verify flag actually returns.

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 short clauses, all load-bearing: what it does, the risk warning, and the coordinate-sourcing tip. The most important information (real desktop operation) is front-loaded rather than buried.

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 6-parameter, nested-object, no-annotation, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers purpose, risk, and coordinate derivation but says nothing about the verify/verifyRegion feedback loop — the very mechanism an agent must understand to know whether the click landed. Adequate but with a clear gap for a side-effecting desktop tool.

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 coverage is 67%, and the two undocumented parameters are exactly the required ones (x, y). The description compensates by explaining what those coordinates refer to and how to obtain them from desktop_perceive's window rect rather than guessing, which is genuine added meaning over the bare schema.

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 the mouse at given coordinates) plus the concrete constraint that it really manipulates the desktop. It distinguishes itself from the pure-read siblings by pointing at desktop_perceive as the coordinate source, though it never explicitly contrasts with desktop_click_element, the element-based alternative.

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 precondition ("confirm the target position before calling") and an actionable how-to for building the arguments (derive coordinates from the window rect returned by desktop_perceive, e.g. its center). It stops short of saying when NOT to use it, e.g. preferring desktop_click_element when an element handle is available, so routing between the two click tools is left to inference.

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