env_click

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does substantial work: it explains that clicks go through the hypervisor, require no guest agent, and land exactly where the pixel points. It could add more about potential side effects, but for a click tool the core behavior is clearly disclosed.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the action. All three sentences carry useful information, though the middle sentence is slightly long and partially overlaps with schema-provided defaults.

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 an output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description covers coordinate sourcing, environment state, button behavior, double-click behavior, and the underlying mechanism. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mostly restates what the schema already says about x/y being pixel positions and the button/double defaults; it adds operational context like "screenshot first" but little new parameter-level meaning.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: "Click the environment's screen at a pixel position." It also clarifies the coordinate frame by referencing env_screenshot, which distinguishes this tool from screenshot, scroll, and type operations among the siblings.

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?

It gives clear operational conditions: "screenshot first and aim" and "The environment must be running." It also explains button and double-click behavior, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as env_type or env_scroll.

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