click

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

With no annotations supplied, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, and it does not: it never says what happens when the selector matches nothing or multiple elements, whether the element is scrolled into view or auto-waited for, whether native or synthetic events are dispatched, or that clicking a link will navigate. The only behavioral fact given is that it acts on the active tab.

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, target and scope all appear before any trimming would be needed.

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?

The schema fully covers the four parameters and no output schema exists, but for a browser-mutating action the description omits the consequences an agent must anticipate: navigation on link clicks, failure modes on missing elements, and interaction with the active-tab state. Adequate but with clear gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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 100%, so selector, button, clickCount and delay are already fully documented with formats, defaults and bounds. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable at this coverage level but not additive.

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 concrete verb (click) and resource (element matching a CSS selector) plus the execution scope (active tab), so the action is unambiguous. It stops short of contrasting with siblings like type, fill or press, but the verb is distinct enough that confusion is unlikely.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'Click' and the scope 'on the active tab' — an agent can infer it must first have the right tab active (e.g. via switch_tab). There is no explicit guidance on prerequisites such as element visibility, waiting behavior, or when to prefer press/fill over click.

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