browser_click

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only reveals that the tool can click via selector or coordinates. It omits important behavioral traits such as whether the element must be visible, what happens when the selector is not found, whether navigation is waited for, or whether the click triggers page changes.

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 a single, tight sentence that front-loads the action and immediately explains the two targeting modes. No filler or redundant details.

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 core targeting modes are covered, but the description leaves ambiguity around what happens if both selector and coordinates are supplied, which is a realistic invocation concern. It also does not address error behavior or element visibility requirements. The existence of an output schema helps, but for a 5-parameter tool with no annotations the context is only minimally complete.

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%, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds value by clarifying the relationship between the parameters: selector is the element-based targeting method, while x/y are the coordinate-based alternatives. This exceeds the schema's simple labels like 'X coordinate' and 'CSS selector of the element (optional)'.

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 states a specific verb 'click' with two clear target modes: CSS selector or x/y coordinates. This makes it immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like browser_hover, browser_type, and browser_select.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use browser_click versus alternatives, nor when to choose coordinate-based clicking over selector-based clicking. The 'or' implies two modes but gives no preconditions, exclusions, or comparison with related browser tools.

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