square_appointments_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 never says what a click actually does — whether it navigates, submits a form, books/cancels an appointment, or is irreversible — nor what happens to page state afterward. Only 'current page' hints at state dependence.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and target, with no filler or redundancy. Nothing in the sentence could be removed without losing information.

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 an interaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition omits the information an agent most needs: the effect of the click, whether it mutates data, and what the agent should expect afterward. The element-number precondition is covered, but the behavioral picture is not.

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% and the single parameter is already documented as 'Element number from the last read.' The description's word 'numbered' is consistent with that but adds no new meaning such as valid ranges, ordering guarantees, or what happens with a stale number; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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 names a specific verb ('Click') and a specific target ('a numbered element on the current Square Appointments page'), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from siblings like square_appointments_read or square_appointments_status. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it complements, but the resource and action are unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'from the last read' in the schema hints that this tool is used after square_appointments_read to act on a discovered element. There is no explicit statement of when to choose this over square_appointments_read or square_appointments_close, and no prerequisites or sequencing guidance in the description itself.

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