scraping_browser_click_ref

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows a click can cause side effects. The description adds the ref-sourcing workflow but does not disclose what a click actually triggers (navigation, form submission, page change) or whether it waits for the result. With annotations carrying the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, and each sentence maps to a distinct concern (what it does, prerequisite, why preferred). The third sentence is a mild tool-selection aside rather than core instruction, keeping it just short of perfect.

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 click tool with no output schema, the description covers the ref prerequisite but omits post-click behavior: whether the page navigates, whether the ARIA snapshot becomes stale afterward, and whether a wait is needed. DestructiveHint is covered by annotations, so the remaining gap is behavioral, not safety-related.

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% – both 'ref' and 'element' are documented in the schema itself, including the ref format example. The description only restates that ref comes from the ARIA snapshot, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. 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 verb ('Click') and resource ('an element') plus the addressing mechanism ('its ref from the ARIA snapshot'), which cleanly separates it from sibling ref-based tools like scraping_browser_type_ref or scraping_browser_scroll_to_ref.

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?

Explicitly names the prerequisite ('Use scraping_browser_snapshot first to get the correct ref values') and gives a preference rule ('more reliable than CSS selectors'), which tells the agent when to prefer this over selector-based clicking. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g., elements outside the ARIA tree).

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