kde_input_click_at

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is known; the description adds valuable side-effect detail ('may move the pointer or change focus') that explains how this affects system state. It does not explain what makes a click destructive or what the return looks like, but it meaningfully exceeds the annotations.

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 coordinate-space distinction and the side-effect warning front-loaded and no redundant restatement of the name.

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 destructive input tool with no output schema, the essentials — coordinate space, display constraint, and pointer/focus side effects — are covered, and the session parameter is documented in the schema. The unspecified 'button' behavior and lack of any multi-display disambiguation keep it short of full completeness.

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 25%, so the description must carry more weight. It does clarify that x/y are global logical-desktop coordinates constrained to a listed display, but says nothing about which display is chosen when a session spans multiple displays, nothing about 'button' (beyond the schema enum and default), and nothing about session targeting. Two of four parameters receive no added meaning.

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 concrete verb (click) and a precisely scoped target ('a global logical-desktop pixel coordinate, not a window-relative point'), which implicitly separates it from the window-relative kde_input_click sibling. It stops short of naming 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?

It gives one hard precondition ('the point must lie on a listed display'), which is real usage guidance, but never says when to choose this over kde_input_click or kde_input_drag, nor what to do when a coordinate is off-display.

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