mobbin_click

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not reveal important details such as whether coordinates are viewport-relative, whether the element is scrolled into view before clicking, or any side effects like navigation. The description only states the action and target options, lacking transparency about runtime behavior.

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 that efficiently communicates the core action and all targeting options. No unnecessary words or redundancy; every segment adds value.

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?

For a simple click tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers the essential usage and the mutually exclusive targeting methods. It could add more details about runtime behavior (e.g., coordinate system, click side effects), but the tool's low complexity and the provided parameter semantics make it sufficient for basic 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 input schema covers all four parameters with individual descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds relational semantics by stating that the user must provide exactly one of: text, selector, or x+y coordinates, and that x and y are used together. This 'one of' constraint is not explicit in the schema, making the description valuable beyond the structured fields.

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 the tool's function: 'Click on an element in the current page.' It uses a specific verb ('click') and resource ('element on current page'), and is distinct from sibling tools like mobbin_navigate or mobbin_type, which cover other actions. The alternative targeting methods (text, selector, coordinates) further clarify the purpose.

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 explains how to specify the target via 'text', 'selector', or 'x+y coordinates', and notes they are alternatives ('Provide one of'). This gives clear operational context. It does not explicitly exclude other tools or mention when not to use it, but the interaction type is obvious from the action name and description.

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