click_element

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that the click is a real focus+click, that the page state is refreshed in the result, and that a navigation indicator is returned. It omits failure behavior (element not found, non-interactive element) and any wait-for-load semantics, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Two tight sentences, mechanism and target front-loaded, followed by return behavior. No restatement of the name or filler wording.

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 two-parameter interaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what it does, what it requires, and what comes back (refreshed state plus navigation signal). An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds provenance meaning by tying the id to get_dom_tree's numbering rather than leaving it as an opaque identifier. The optional clientId is left to the schema entirely, which is acceptable given full coverage.

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 and mechanism ('Performs a real click (focus + click)') on a precisely scoped resource: the element that get_dom_tree numbered with the given id. This makes it distinguishable from siblings like input_text and scroll_page without opening any schema.

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 establishes the prerequisite workflow by tying the id to get_dom_tree, so an agent knows it must number the DOM first. It does not explicitly contrast with input_text (e.g., click to focus vs. click to type), so a small inference remains, but the usage context is clear.

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