click

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses that refs renumber after click, requiring a fresh read_tab. Does not detail other side effects like page navigation, pop-ups, or required permissions, but the note on renumbering is valuable for agent operational correctness.

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?

Description is front-loaded with purpose, followed by usage guidance, then parameter and return details. Every sentence adds unique value. No redundancy or fluff. Well-structured for quick parsing.

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 low parameter count (2) and existence of output schema, description covers purpose, usage, parameter semantics, and behavioral side effect (ref renumbering). Also describes return as 'JSON with resulting url and fresh ref count'. Complete for a click action with no gaps.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage; description fully compensates. Explains tab_id as 'handle from open_tab' and ref as '[eN] marker (like e42) from tab's latest read_tab snapshot.' Adds concrete examples and context entirely missing from schema.

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?

Description clearly states action: 'Click an interactive element... by its ref.' Verb and resource specific. Explicitly distinguishes from siblings by mentioning alternatives like press_key and type_into for form submission.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use: links, buttons, checkboxes, submitting forms with a submit button. Also states when-not-to-use: for forms without a submit button, recommending type_into with submit=True or press_key with Enter. Includes post-click guidance to call read_tab again due to ref renumbering.

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