click_element

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the fallback chain for method=auto (AT-SPI action first, otherwise a real mouse click at the element center), which is real behavioral value. However it says nothing about side effects, focus changes, failure behavior when the element is not actionable, or what screenshot_after does.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The core action is stated first and the method semantics follow immediately.

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-parameter action tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the core mechanism but omits failure modes, permission/accessibility requirements, and the meaning of screenshot_after, leaving gaps an agent would need to resolve by trial.

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. It explains the 'auto' value of method but leaves 'action' and 'mouse' implicit, and never explains that 'id' is a ui_tree node id or what 'screenshot_after' does. Partial compensation only.

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 (activate) and resource (ui_tree element), and the parenthetical clarifies the mechanism. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling 'click' tool, which operates on raw coordinates, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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?

The description implies the tool works on elements obtained from ui_tree but never states when to use it instead of 'click', 'set_text', or the mouse_* primitives. No prerequisites (e.g., 'id must come from ui_tree') or exclusions are given.

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