Click Element

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is non-read-only and destructive (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), so the agent knows it may mutate state. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as whether the click may trigger navigation, wait for page changes, or return an observe summary. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also does not enrich them.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and selector scope. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundant elaboration. Ideal length for a tool that is well-documented by its schema.

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 the complex schema and annotations, the description is passable but not comprehensive. It omits differentiation from closely related siblings like element_click_and_download or element_hover, and does not mention the observe option or accessibility/scope features. The schema fills many gaps, but the description alone would not fully prepare an agent for all usage 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 description coverage is 100%, with detailed descriptions for each parameter (button, observe, timeout, selector, click_count). The tool description adds minimal new information, mostly repeating the schema's selector guidance. It does not explain the union type for selector or the accessibility option, but the schema already covers these. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific action ('Click an element') and identifies the resource by selector type ('CSS selector or XPath'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like element_hover (hovering) and page_click_xy (clicking at coordinates) through the explicit click verb and selector scope.

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 provides some usage guidance on selector formats ('Bare selectors are treated as CSS; use text:... for text matching'), which helps invocation. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as element_hover or element_click_and_download, nor does it mention any exclusions. Usage context is implied but not directly stated.

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