vtable_cell_click_by_field

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful context: addressing, scrolling, and centering are resolved internally via VTable APIs, and it uses Playwright trusted mouse input. It does not disclose verification/observation behavior, side effects, or failure characteristics, but the existing disclosure is substantive.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and has no redundant wording. It could be slightly more structured with parameter hints, but it is appropriately concise for a tool whose behavior is partly encoded in its name.

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?

This is an 8-parameter tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, yet the description only covers the two core inputs and a coordinate constraint. It does not explain the other six parameters, expected preconditions, or side effects; the output schema reduces the need to document returns, but the description is still far from complete for safe invocation.

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 for the eight parameters. It clarifies field and record_index as 'business field + record index', but says nothing about button, verify, settle_ms, max_results, double_click, or observe_after, leaving most parameters semantically opaque.

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 a specific action: 'click VTable cell by business field + record index', with a concrete verb and resource. The method distinction ('by_field') is present but it does not explicitly name or contrast with the sibling vtable_cell_click, so it stops short of a full 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?

The description implies when to use the tool: when a cell is identified by business field and record index, and it explicitly tells the AI not to provide pixel coordinates. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over vtable_cell_click or other alternatives, nor does it state exclusions.

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