click

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently explains how coordinates are resolved in each mode: widget center, relative to widget top-left, or relative to main window. It also discloses click button options. Missing details like failure behavior or app focus are minor given the schema's pid documentation.

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 well-structured: a one-line summary followed by three bullet modes and the button option. Every sentence provides necessary semantic value, and the most important targeting rules are front-loaded.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return-value details are not required. The description covers the main behavioral axes: target selection, coordinate interpretation, and button choice. One gap is that with all parameters optional, it does not state what happens if neither widget_id nor x/y is provided, but overall it is adequate for a click tool.

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 only 20% since only pid has a description, so the description must compensate. It adds strong semantics for widget_id and x/y by explaining their interaction modes and for button by listing 'left', 'right', or 'middle'. It does not add anything beyond the schema for pid, but that parameter is already well described.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Click a widget or screen coordinate.' The three bullets precisely differentiate coordinate modes, and the presence of 'Click' naturally distinguishes it from the sibling double_click tool even though that sibling is not named.

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?

The description gives clear context for how to specify a click target and includes button options, but it never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives like double_click, press_key, type_text, or scroll. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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