browser_click

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the core action and button options. However, it never clarifies the coordinate system (viewport vs. page, device vs. CSS pixels), the side effects of clicking (navigation, form submission), or the behavior of the `clicks` parameter, leaving meaningful ambiguity for a mutating action.

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, action first, with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded, though it is lean enough to omit the `clicks` parameter entirely, which a slightly expanded description could have covered without becoming verbose.

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?

The tool is simple (4 params, no output schema), so the description only needs to enable a correct basic call — which it does for x/y and button. But since there are no annotations and no output schema, the description is the sole behavioral source, and its silence on `clicks` semantics and the coordinate-system meaning leaves gaps an agent could trip on.

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 0%, so the description must compensate; it does add meaning to x/y ('screen coordinates') and to `button` (left/right/middle). But `clicks`, an integer parameter with default 1, is never explained — the agent cannot tell whether it means double-click or repeat count — and no ranges or pixel semantics are given for x/y.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource — 'Click at screen coordinates (x, y)' — which is unambiguous and tells the agent this is a coordinate-based mouse action rather than an element- or key-based one. It also adds meaning to `button` by enumerating 'left'/'right'/'middle'. It stops short of a 5 because it never names sibling tools (e.g., browser_js or browser_press) to explicitly carve out its scope.

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?

No guidance is given on when to choose this tool over alternatives: browser_js/browser_cdp can trigger clicks programmatically, browser_press handles key presses, and browser_fill targets form fields, yet none of these routing decisions are addressed. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context hints, so the agent gets no information beyond the tool's own name.

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