Desktop: Click

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the permission-gating requirement, which is genuine context beyond the annotations, but it never explains that the click may be irreversible on the target app or how failure/no-handle conditions surface.

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 tight sentences with the action front-loaded and the precondition second — no filler, no repetition of the title, nothing that could be cut.

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 one-parameter tool with annotations covering destructiveness and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it says what it does and what authorization it needs. The one missing piece is where a valid handle comes from (desktop_find/desktop_tree), which matters because a wrong handle makes this a destructive misfire.

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% with a single required 'handle' integer that is fully documented in the schema. The description's 'by its native window handle' restates the schema rather than adding format, source, or validity detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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) and resource (Windows UI element) plus the addressing mechanism (native window handle). The phrase 'Windows UI element' and 'native window handle' implicitly separates it from the DOM-oriented cdp_click sibling, so an agent can pick between them without opening a 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?

It supplies one real precondition — desktop_permission must be present in the active mission step metadata — which is more than most definitions offer. However, it gives no routing guidance: nothing says whether to use desktop_find or desktop_tree to obtain a handle first, or when desktop_move/desktop_multi_select would be more appropriate.

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