da_click

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It does disclose the key behavioral detail that the cursor is moved first when x/y are provided, which is valuable. However, it doesn't mention whether coordinates are absolute or relative to the display, whether there's any delay, or what happens with multiple clicks (click interval).

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?

Two sentences, both useful. The first states the action and defaults; the second clarifies the x/y cursor-moving behavior. Zero filler or redundancy. Front-loaded with the primary function.

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?

With 4 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is brief but covers defaults. For what is fundamentally a simple click action, the description addresses the essentials. Gaps remain: coordinate system semantics, behavior of back/forward buttons, and interaction with specific displays are undocumented, but the tool is low-complexity.

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%, meaning the description must compensate. The description partly does: it explains that button defaults to 'left', count defaults to 1, and x/y trigger a cursor move. However, it doesn't explain the meaning of 'back'/'forward' buttons, the coordinate system (screen vs window), or clarify that x and y may be independently optional. Partial compensation, not full.

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 clearly states it clicks a mouse button with defaults (left, count 1) and explains the x/y cursor-move behavior. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like da_double_click (which is specifically a double-click) and sufficiently conveys the primary function, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance. It doesn't say when to prefer da_click over da_double_click or da_drag, nor mention any prerequisites (e.g., display must be active, coordinates must be valid for current display). The usage context is only implied by the tool's nature.

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