Click page element

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'compatibility selector-based click' without mentioning side effects, the confirmed flag for form-submitting clicks, or what happens on failure. The schema's confirmed parameter description is not echoed, leaving behavioral risks undisclosed.

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 short sentences with no redundancy, well-structured and front-loaded. However, it is extremely terse, sacrificing necessary detail for brevity, though that is a completeness issue more than conciseness.

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 browser interaction tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It doesn't mention return values, error handling, or the click confirmation behavior, making it inadequate for reliable agent use.

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 only 33% (only confirmed is described), so the description must compensate. It doesn't explain tabId or selector beyond the word 'selector', and the confirmed parameter's purpose is not mentioned. The description adds little value over the schema.

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 identifies the action as a 'selector-based click' on a page element, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from the newer browser_act by labeling itself 'compatibility', though it doesn't explicitly say 'click an element' beyond the title.

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?

Explicitly states that new workflows should use browser_snapshot refs with browser_act, naming the alternative and providing clear when-not-to-use guidance. This strongly directs the agent to the preferred tool while implying this tool is for legacy use.

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