avito_click

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one key behavioral trait: irreversible actions need confirm=true. It stops short of explaining what happens if confirm is omitted, whether refs can go stale, or any auth/permission requirements.

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 with no filler; the primary targeting mechanism (ref, marked as more reliable) is front-loaded ahead of the safety caveat.

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 3-param action tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials but omits failure behavior, return value, and ref invalidation, leaving meaningful gaps an agent would want.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: ref is tied to snapshot output, text to visible labels, and confirm to irreversible actions. The only gap is the precedence when both ref and text are supplied.

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 ('кликает') and resource (element) plus the two targeting mechanisms (ref from snapshot or visible text), which distinguishes it from siblings like avito_press and avito_hover. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Gives useful intra-tool guidance — prefer ref over text because it is more reliable, and irreversible buttons require confirm=true. However, it never says when to use this tool versus avito_press or avito_hover, which is the more important routing decision.

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