Click in browser

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true; the description goes well beyond them by explaining that the click targets a background tab with real trusted mouse input without selecting or raising the window, that out-of-view elements are scrolled into view, and that occlusion causes a failure naming the covering element rather than a blind press. It further discloses that checkbox/radio/switch clicks report resulting state and that newly opened tabs must be found with browser_list_tabs.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and targeting options, then escalates to caveats and side effects; every sentence carries distinct information with no filler. It is a dense, single-paragraph block, and the popup/tab-discovery and native-window notes could be set apart for faster scanning, but nothing is redundant.

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 interaction tool with no output schema, the description covers the failure mode, the scrolling behavior, state-reporting behavior, and where popped-up tabs go. Combined with the fully documented schema for return_state and wait_for_selector, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter and the baseline is 3. The description adds a genuine constraint absent from the schema — that index and x/y are mutually exclusive and index is preferred — which is real semantic guidance rather than restatement. It does not, however, add format or behavior detail for tab_id, session_id, return_state, or wait_for_selector, leaving those entirely to the schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Click in one of the agent's tabs') and immediately names the two accepted targeting modes: element index from browser_snapshot (preferred) or page coordinates. It also separates itself from the sibling 'click' tool by scoping that one to native app windows, so an agent can choose without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit selection rules: prefer index over coordinates, pass index OR x and y (not both), and use 'click' for native app windows. It also states the prerequisite workflow ('snapshot first') and warns that a click can submit forms or follow links, which is exactly the when-to-use/when-to-be-careful guidance an agent needs.

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