Right Click

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and read-write, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the action itself. It does not mention side effects like opening a context menu, how coordinates relate to the latest raster, or anything about strategy behavior. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action first and communicates the essential target forms compactly.

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?

A five-parameter destructive UI-action tool with no output schema and no usage guidance is under-described by one sentence. return_state behavior, strategy semantics, and coordinate resolution are not explained, making the definition incomplete for reliable 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?

The schema already provides reasonable descriptions for target variants, strategy, modifiers, and return_state, so the description's brief mention of 'element or frame coordinate' adds little beyond what is structured. However, app_ref remains undescribed and modifier syntax is still vague, so the description doesn't fully compensate for remaining gaps.

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 uses a specific verb ('right-click') and identifies both accepted target forms ('bound element or frame coordinate'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling click tools such as left_click, double_click, and middle_click.

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 gives no guidance on when to use right_click instead of left_click, double_click, middle_click, or other mouse tools. It also doesn't explain when coordinate targeting should be preferred over element targeting, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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