CDP: Click

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that: it does not say that a click may trigger navigation, form submission, or other irreversible page state changes, which is the key context an agent needs for a destructive 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 the primary alternative (ref) stated first and zero filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 interaction tool with a fully documented 7-param schema, the description covers the core invocation but omits the surrounding flow (snapshot first, tab targeting, expected post-click effects). Adequate but leaves notable gaps for an agent orchestrating a browser session.

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 100%, so every parameter is self-documented, and the description only restates the two input modes (ref vs x/y) plus the snapshot source of refs. This is a marginal add over the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb (click) with two concrete selection modes (a11y ref, or viewport x/y), which is enough for an agent to understand the operation. It does not differentiate itself from sibling interaction tools like cdp_move or desktop_click, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

The 'or' construction implies two usage paths and names cdp_snapshot as the source of refs, giving implied when-to-use context. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer ref vs coordinates, no prerequisites, and no mention of required tab selection among the sibling cdp_tabs/cdp_switch tools.

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