click

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries meaningful extra burden. It discloses that the element is scrolled into view, that results are reported as overlays/nav/LCU requests, and that dangerous writes are blocked at the network level, which is valuable behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the key reporting and safety behavior, so every part 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?

Given 11 optional parameters, no output schema, and sparse annotations, the description does a good job covering the click's side effects and safety blocking. It could say more about how targeting parameters interact or when a click is expected to fail, but it is broadly complete.

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 high at 91%, so the schema already documents parameters like ref, text, selector, and force. The description does not add targeting semantics beyond saying the click is on an element, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 resource: a real CDP mouse click on an element, scrolled into view. The 'CDP Input' qualifier distinguishes it from script/eval-based synthetic clicks and makes the action unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the emphasis on a 'real mouse click', but the description does not explicitly say when to choose this over siblings like hover, script, or eval. The blocked-write context helps set expectations but is not a use-vs-alternative rule.

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