Middle Click

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

The description reveals only the mechanical action and target type. It does not mention side effects such as opening links in new tabs, autoscroll behavior, or system-specific consequences, nor does it add context beyond the destructiveHint annotation already present.

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 entire description is one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately communicates the action and the acceptable target forms.

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?

Given the tool has five parameters, no output schema, and several closely related sibling click tools, the description is too thin. It does not explain when to prefer this click variant, what return_state can do in practice, or what behavioral effects to expect.

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?

The description adds a small amount of meaning by clarifying that the target can be a 'bound element' or 'frame coordinate', which maps to the schema's target variants. However, it does not explain app_ref, strategy, modifiers, or return_state; the schema provides most of the needed detail for those.

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 states a specific verb ('Middle-click') and a resource ('a bound element or frame coordinate'), which clearly communicates the core action. It is distinguishable from sibling mouse tools by the 'middle' modifier, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use middle_click versus left_click, right_click, double_click, or triple_click. The only implied usage comes from the tool's name and the literal description, so an agent is left to infer selection criteria.

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