click

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds two meaningful behaviors: 'Handles React/Vue/Angular events' and 'waits for navigation.' However, it omits other significant behaviors like waitForSelector, autoAnalyzeAfter, and waitForRouteChange, which are explained only in the schema. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two concise sentences: the first states the action and identification methods; the second covers two key behaviors. Both sentences earn their place, and the content is front-loaded with the core action. There is no fluff or repetition.

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 9 parameters and no annotations or output schema, so the description must compensate for complexity. While the schema is 100% covered, the main description does not summarize advanced features like waitForSelector or autoAnalyzeAfter, which are essential for dropdowns/popups. The description is sufficient for basic clicks but incomplete for the tool's full capability.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying 'APOM ID (preferred)' over CSS selector, which is not explicit in the schema. It also implies the id/selector trade-off through framework event handling, adding semantic meaning beyond the raw parameter list.

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 purpose: 'Click element by APOM ID (preferred) or CSS selector.' It identifies the verb ('Click'), the resource ('element'), and the identification methods. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like type, hover, and pressKey by focusing on clicking and framework event handling.

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 provides clear context: clicking elements with APOM ID preferred over CSS selector, and it handles framework events and waits for navigation. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the tool's name and sibling list make the use case obvious (e.g., use click for mouse clicks, not for typing). This earns a 4 rather than 5.

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