browser_click

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no mention of what happens on a missing element, whether the click blocks/waits, whether it triggers navigation, or what is returned. For a mutating, state-changing browser action this is a substantial gap.

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?

Short and front-loaded: the core action is the first sentence, followed by a compact Args block. The Args list partially duplicates the schema but does add the priority semantics, so it largely earns its place.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must cover behavior and results, and it does not — nothing about success/failure signaling, error conditions, or waiting semantics. An agent can form the call but cannot predict its side effects or failure modes.

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 0%, yet the description documents all four parameters, explains the selector priority rule (x/y used when selector is empty) and the default tab behavior. That meaningfully compensates for the undocumented schema, though it omits any selector syntax limitations or coordinate reference frame (viewport vs page).

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 specific verb (click) and resource (element on the page) plus the two targeting modes (CSS selector or coordinates). It is clear what the tool does, but it never differentiates itself from close siblings like browser_trusted_click, browser_double_click, or browser_click_and_wait_navigation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over browser_trusted_click (which likely exists for a reason, e.g. bypassing event-trust checks) or browser_click_and_wait_navigation. The only conditional logic given ('used if selector is empty') is parameter mechanics rather than tool-selection guidance.

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