Click

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

With zero annotations the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the backend split (XTest on X11, virtual pointer on Wayland), but omits the critical behavior of what happens when x/y are omitted (click at current pointer position?) and says nothing about this being an irreversible action dispatched into a live desktop session.

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 the action and coordinate model front-loaded and no filler. Nothing could be cut without losing signal.

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?

Eight parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage demand more than two sentences. Missing: behavior with omitted coordinates, display-id requirement, return/error behavior, and any side-effect disclosure for an action that mutates a real desktop.

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 coverage is only 25%, so the description must compensate; it partially does by explaining x/y as absolute output coordinates and 'relative=true' as window-relative. It says nothing about 'count' (repeat clicks), the 'id' display requirement, or 'window_id', leaving half the parameters undocumented in both places.

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 and resource ('Clicks a mouse button') and clarifies the coordinate space (absolute output vs. window-relative), which separates it from pointer_move and drag. It never names a sibling or explicitly contrasts with scroll/drag, so it stops 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?

No guidance on when to click vs. drag or scroll, no prerequisites (does a display need to be open?), and no when-not-to-use conditions. The only contextual detail is coordinate-space selection, which is parameter semantics rather than usage routing.

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