lichess_click

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It conveys that the action is scoped to the current page and depends on prior read state, but says nothing about whether a click navigates or mutates page state, whether the element numbering survives, whether a re-read is needed afterward, or how an invalid element number fails.

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?

One compact sentence with the action front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is close to under-specification for a stateful browser automation step.

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 one-parameter action tool with no output schema, the minimum is present, but the agent is left guessing about post-click state: whether the page changed and whether lichess_read must be called again before the next click. Given that this is an interactive browser tool where those questions determine the next call, the description is adequate but incomplete.

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 100%, and the single parameter is already documented as 'Element number from the last read.' The description adds no meaning beyond that — no range behavior, no note on numbering lifetime — so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific resource ('a numbered element on the current Lichess page'), which is enough to distinguish it from lichess_type and lichess_open by implication. However, it never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 implies a usage sequence by requiring an element 'on the current Lichess page', and the schema reinforces this with 'Element number from the last read' — so an agent can deduce lichess_read must run first. There is no explicit statement of that precondition, no when-not guidance, and no guidance on what to do when the element number is stale.

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