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 behavioral disclosure. It adds useful information about coordinate semantics (element center, offset within element, viewport coordinates), which is not inferable from the schema. However, it does not discuss failure behavior, button selection, or what happens when all parameters are null.

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 brief and well-structured, with a single opening sentence and three bullet points that clearly organize the usage modes. No redundant information is included.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema (which covers return values), the description covers the essential usage patterns and coordinate behavior. It omits discussion of the button parameter and edge cases (e.g., all parameters null), but these are relatively minor.

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?

The input schema provides only types and defaults with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the meaning of element_id and x/y through the three usage modes, clarifying that x/y are relative offsets when combined with element_id and viewport coordinates otherwise. The button parameter is not mentioned, which is a minor gap.

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 the tool's function: clicking an element or page coordinate. It uses a specific verb ('Click') and resource ('element or page coordinate'), and the three bullet points clarify the different modes of operation. It distinguishes itself from siblings like double_click by the action name.

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 explains how to use the tool based on parameter combinations (element_id, coordinates), but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as double_click, type_text, or press_key. There are no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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