browser_trusted_click

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses meaningful traits: it is slower, it moves the user's physical cursor, and it targets pages rejecting synthetic events. It doesn't cover failure behavior or what happens if the selector misses, so it stops short of a 5, but it adds real behavioral context beyond a bare 'click'.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then the tradeoff guidance, then a tight Args list. Every line earns its place with no redundancy.

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 click interaction tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the mechanism, the routing condition, and full parameter documentation. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so the description must compensate and it does: it explains the selector-vs-x/y precedence, the two coordinate_space values, the meaning of focus, and the tab_id viewport-only constraint. This adds material meaning the bare schema lacks.

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 and mechanism: 'Click using the real OS mouse pointer.' It immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling browser_click by describing the different implementation (OS-level vs synthetic events).

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?

Explicit routing rule: 'prefer browser_click unless a page specifically ignores synthetic clicks.' This names the alternative and the exact condition that selects this tool, leaving nothing to inference.

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