scraping_browser_click_ref

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation and side-effect profile is covered structurally. The description adds a useful reliability rationale ('more reliable than CSS selectors') and the ref provenance, but says nothing about what a click can trigger — navigation, form submission, or a page-state change — which matters a lot for a destructive, 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the prerequisite, then the rationale — no filler and nothing repeated from the schema verbatim.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema and annotations that already cover safety, the description supplies the essential prerequisite and input source. The remaining gap is post-click behavior (does the page navigate, how to recover from a stale ref), which would make it fully self-sufficient.

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%, with both 'ref' and 'element' documented including an example ref value, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces where the ref originates but adds no meaning for the 'element' context parameter and no format/syntax detail beyond the 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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Click on an element') and the mechanism ('using its ref from the ARIA snapshot'), which clearly separates it from scraping_browser_type_ref, scraping_browser_fill_form, and the get_text/get_html readers. It does not explicitly say how it differs from the other ref-based actions (scroll_to_ref, wait_for_ref), so it stops just short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

'Use scraping_browser_snapshot first to get the correct ref values' gives a concrete prerequisite and names the tool that produces the required input, which is exactly the sequencing an agent needs. It gives no when-not guidance (e.g. what to do if the ref is stale, or when to prefer scraping_browser_get_text over clicking), so no exclusions.

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