desktop_click

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and 'Click at screen coordinates.' discloses almost nothing. It says nothing about whether this is a real OS-level input event, which window/application receives the click, whether it requires focus or accessibility permissions, or whether it blocks until completion.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste, but it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than genuinely efficient. Brevity here comes at the cost of missing information rather than from tight editing.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, which lifts the burden slightly. But for a 4-parameter OS input tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves the agent without enough to invoke it confidently in edge cases like double-clicks or right-clicks.

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 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It gestures at 'coordinates' (x, y) but says nothing about 'button' (default left) or 'clicks' (double-click behavior), leaving two parameters semantically undocumented anywhere.

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 ('screen coordinates'), which is immediately distinguishable from siblings like desktop_drag, desktop_type, and desktop_scroll. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with any sibling, so it stops short of the top band.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as desktop_drag or desktop_hotkey. The agent must infer context entirely on its own.

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