click

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and non-idempotency, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this is a real input injection at point coordinates, but says nothing about whether the target window must be focused, cursor side effects, or failure modes when coordinates land off-target.

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, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the fallback condition following immediately. Nothing could be cut without losing signal.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials (what, where, fallback role) but omits environmental prerequisites such as window focus or coordinate origin. Adequate, with clear room for more behavioral detail.

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 only 25% (only 'clicks' is described), so x, y and button lean on the description for meaning. "Screen coordinates (points)" usefully pins down the unit for x/y, but button semantics and any coupling between clicks and button are left unstated.

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: a real (synthetic) mouse click at screen coordinates. It implicitly carves out a niche against the accessibility-based alternative, though it never names click_element directly. An agent can tell it apart from drag/scroll/type by the resource acted on.

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?

"Fallback for content without accessibility info" gives a clear condition for selecting this tool over the accessibility-driven click path. It does not name click_element explicitly or state exclusions (e.g., prefer click_element when it exists), so it falls short of a full when/when-not statement.

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