style_click

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the key behavioral difference between a uid click (opens dropdown/overlay) and a selector click (Playwright real click). However, it fails to mention side effects, return behavior, errors, or timing, leaving behavioral ambiguity.

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 extremely concise, with two short sentences that front-load the primary purpose and a secondary mode. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool has seven optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description is the only guide. It covers only two modes (uid/selector) but leaves key details unexplained, such as how uid interacts with index/urlIncludes/titleIncludes, what scroll/timeout do, and what the tool returns or does on failure. This is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool in varied scenarios.

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 coverage is 57%, and the description adds meaning by explaining that uid opens dropdowns/overlays, which the schema doesn't describe. It also reiterates that selector uses real Playwright click, but the schema already says 'CSS; 有则优先真实点击'. Other parameters like index, scroll, timeout, urlIncludes, and titleIncludes receive no added semantic context.

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 clicks a uid to open drop-downs/overlays, and also supports a selector for real Playwright clicks. It provides a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like style_hover by focusing on click actions.

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 explicit guidance on when to use style_click versus sibling tools such as style_hover or style_tabs. It does hint at two parameter modes (uid vs selector) but doesn't explain selection criteria or context for choosing this tool over alternatives.

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