firefox_click

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is known. The description adds real value beyond them: it discloses that the click is gated by visibility/stability/obstruction checks and that the dispatched DOM event is synthetic, which affects how the agent should reason about side effects. It stops short of saying what happens when the element is stale or the check fails.

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 dense sentences with no filler, and the action and its preconditions are front-loaded before the risk warning. The phrase 'DOM input is synthetic' is terse to the point of ambiguity about what is synthetic (the event or the element reference).

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, non-idempotent interaction tool with no output schema, the description covers the main risk and the precondition checks, which is a reasonable baseline. It omits failure behavior, staleness of snapshotId, and tab/frame scoping, which matter for correct invocation.

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 50%: ref and snapshotId are documented in the schema, but tabId and frameId have no description anywhere. The description text mentions no parameters at all, so it does not compensate for the gap, leaving the agent to infer which tab and frame context the click applies to.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Click a current observed element') and adds the preconditions it enforces (visibility, stability, obstruction checks). It is clearly distinguishable from firefox_fill or firefox_select, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the closest sibling, firefox_point.

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 a caution that clicking 'may submit forms or cause external effects; follow the user intent,' which implies when to be careful rather than when to choose this over alternatives. There is no explicit routing guidance against siblings such as firefox_point (coordinate clicks) or firefox_fill, so the agent must infer the choice.

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