browser_evaluate_click

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently reveals that it bypasses visibility/actionability, runs in frame context, and works only for same-origin frames. This is useful, but it doesn't mention side effects or failure behavior beyond the timeout parameter, so it's not fully 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 three short sentences, each delivering essential information: what it does, why to use it, and its constraint. It is front-loaded and free of filler, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (frame clicks, bypassing actionability), the description covers the core behavior, usage scenario, and a key limitation. It lacks an explicit statement about return values or what happens on failure, but the schema's timeoutMs and the absence of an output schema keep this from being a major gap.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the frame context and the bypassing behavior, which indirectly clarifies the purpose of the frameSelector and css parameters, but it doesn't add significant new parameter-level detail beyond 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 states the tool clicks an element inside a frame using DOM .click(), with the context of running in frame context. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying the mechanism (DOM .click()) and the limitation (same-origin frame only), making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly says to use when locator click fails (e.g., SUBMIT disabled or not visible), providing a clear trigger condition. It also notes the same-origin frame limitation, but does not name sibling alternatives directly or explicitly state when not to use it, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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