kde_input_click

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

Annotations already disclose openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=true, so the description does not need to restate risk. It does add the coordinate normalization convention and the pre-condition that the target must already be active, but is silent on what happens if the window is not active (does it fail, raise, or click the wrong window?), and gives no failure-mode context for a destructive input 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the key constraint (normalized coordinates) is placed where it will be read. Its terseness is efficient but leaves the pre-condition and coordinate origin implicit, which is a missed opportunity rather than verbosity.

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 destructive, open-world input-injection tool with five parameters, 20% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It should explain the window_id-to-active-window relationship, what occurs on failure or non-active targets, and how the click interacts with button defaults; none of that is present.

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 only 20% (only 'session' is documented), so the description needs to compensate. It does clarify that x and y are normalized [0,1] window coordinates, which meaningfully supplements the bare minimum/maximum bounds, but window_id and button receive no explanation and the description does not say whether window_id must match an already-active window.

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 concrete verb (click) plus the resource and scope (an already-active target window at normalized [0,1] coordinates), which is specific enough to separate it from the absolute-coordinate sibling kde_input_click_at and from drag/key/type. It does not name the sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

"Already-active" implies a prerequisite (the window must be activated first, presumably via kde_window_activate or kde_session_use), but the description never states that prerequisite, gives no when-not conditions, and names no alternative. The guidance is implied rather than actionable.

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