strava_click

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing beyond the action itself. It does not say what the click triggers (navigation, modal, form submission), whether it waits for the page to settle, whether it is reversible, or what happens if the element number is stale or out of range.

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 short sentence with no filler and the action front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification given the tool performs a page-mutating interaction.

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 tool with side effects, no annotations, and no output schema to explain the result, the description should cover the read-then-click dependency and what a click returns or changes. It leaves an agent guessing about prerequisites and post-click state, which is a real gap for an interactive action.

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%, so the single parameter is already documented as "Element number from the last read" with a minimum of 1. The description's phrase "numbered element" is consistent with the schema but adds no new meaning such as index bounds relative to the page or behavior for invalid numbers.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Click") with a specific target ("a numbered element on the current Strava page"), which is enough to separate it from siblings like strava_type or strava_read. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as alternatives, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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: "on the current Strava page" suggests a page must already be open, and "numbered element" suggests a prior read, but neither prerequisite is stated. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over strava_type or strava_guide, nor on what to do when the element number is unknown.

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