browser_click

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say what happens after the click (navigation, form submit, page reload), whether refs go stale after a click, or what error is returned for an invalid/outdated ref.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the action, the target, the identifier source, and examples all fit in one line.

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?

Adequate for a one-param tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, but for a browser-automation click it omits post-click effects and ref-staleness, which an agent needs to sequence calls correctly.

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 100% and already labels 'ref' as 'The item's number'. The description adds genuine value by naming the source of that number (browser_read), which the schema does not convey.

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?

Specific verb ('Tap') plus resource ('an item on the page') and a concrete enumeration of element kinds (link, button, checkbox). The reference to browser_read distinguishes it from browser_type/browser_scroll and from the native 'tap' sibling, though the native-vs-browser split is left implicit.

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?

States the prerequisite workflow clearly: the ref must be 'its number from browser_read'. That tells the agent to read first, then click. No guidance on when not to use it (e.g., versus 'tap' for native UI, or 'press'/'confirm').

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