chrome_use_click

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden, and it only says 'click' — nothing about what happens if the selector misses, whether the call blocks or waits, or that refs can go stale. Some behavioral detail (observe, force, follow/newTab, timeout) lives in schema property descriptions, but the description itself discloses almost none of it for a mutation tool.

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 short sentences with the primary mode of targeting front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity leaves behavior undisclosed rather than being a model of well-structured guidance.

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 10-parameter interactive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it never says what a click returns (e.g. whether the page navigated, whether a new tab opened) or how failures surface. The rich schema descriptions compensate for most parameter-level gaps, keeping this at a minimum-viable 3.

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 the schema already explains every one of the 10 parameters. The description restates the selector vs. x/y split without adding format, precedence rules, or defaults beyond what the schema says. Baseline 3 applies.

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 target types (element via CSS selector or @ref, or raw viewport coordinate), which cleanly separates it from siblings like chrome_use_fill, chrome_use_type and chrome_use_press. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The only guidance is the mutual-exclusion rule: 'Provide either `selector` or both `x` and `y`.' That is a call-shape instruction rather than a when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives statement; there is no note about when to prefer @ref over a coordinate, or when to escalate to chrome_use_expect.

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