glass_click

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

The annotations already provide the basic safety profile (not read-only, not destructive), so the description only needs to add behavioral context. It usefully clarifies that modifiers are held during the action and that count enables multi-clicks, but it does not state what happens with out-of-window coordinates, whether the pointer moves, or whether window focus is required.

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 sentences, tightly packed with the essential behavior and parameter hints, with the core action front-loaded. Nothing is wasted or redundant.

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 5-parameter action tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers the input semantics well but leaves gaps around preconditions such as window activation or focus, and what a successful or failed click returns. It is usable but not fully self-contained.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces button, count, and modifiers, and adds the 'multi/range-select' use case for modifier combinations, but most of the parameter meaning is already documented in 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 opening phrase 'Click at window-relative coordinates' names a specific action and resource, clearly identifying this as the coordinate-based click tool alongside siblings like glass_click_element. It is differentiated by the explicit coordinate framing, though it does not name the alternative tool directly.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool instead of glass_click_element, glass_drag, or glass_gesture, nor are prerequisites such as a selected or focused window mentioned. The description explains how to configure the click but not when it is the appropriate choice.

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