mc_click_widget

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses label resolution semantics (case-insensitive, exact match tried before contains), but says nothing about failure behavior when nothing matches, whether the click is dispatched at widget coordinates, whether the screen must be current/focused, or what the tool returns.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and the two lookup modes, with the matching rule in parentheses. Nothing redundant and nothing buried.

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 three-optional-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers targeting well but omits the ambiguity of zero required parameters and the no-match outcome. An agent knows how to address a widget but not how to interpret failure or the response.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: label matching is case-insensitive with exact-then-contains fallback, and the id must come from mc_screen. It does not explain what happens when both id and label are supplied or omitted (required list is empty).

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 (a widget on the current screen) plus the two identification modes, label or id. It is clearly distinct from a raw coordinate click, though it never names mc_click or mc_screen-clicking alternatives explicitly, leaving sibling differentiation to inference from the id source.

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: use this when the target is a UI widget you can identify by label or by an id obtained from mc_screen. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer mc_click (coordinates) or what to do when no widget matches, so guidance is only indirect.

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