mc_click

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only clarifies the coordinate space; it says nothing about whether the click is blocking, what is returned, whether the screen must be foregrounded, or what happens if coordinates fall outside the scaled viewport.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and the coordinate convention, with no filler. It is efficient, though the parenthetical reference could be slightly clearer about where scale values originate.

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 simple three-parameter action tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential coordinate contract. It omits the post-click outcome and any safety or state requirements, which an agent needs when chaining clicks with mc_screenshot or mc_click_widget.

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%, so x, y, and the button mapping (0=left, 1=right) are already documented. The description adds the useful pointer that x/y must be expressed in the scaled space obtainable from mc_status, which is genuine meaning beyond the schema but limited in scope.

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 (scaled GUI coordinates on the current screen), and points to mc_status for scaledWidth/Height. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling mc_click_widget in the text, so an agent must infer the difference between coordinate-based and widget-based clicking.

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: click at coordinates on the current screen, with the coordinate space referenced from mc_status. There is no explicit when-to-use versus mc_click_widget or mc_use, and no statement of prerequisites such as the targeted screen needing to be open.

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