input_mouseClick

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does specify the coordinate frame (relative to MOHO window top-left), which is important. However, it does not mention potential side effects like window focus requirements, cursor movement, or behavior when coordinates are invalid. The basic behavior of a click is implicit, so this is adequate but not rich.

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?

The description is two sentences, each earning its place. It front-loads the core function ('Click at (x, y)...') and then adds the key usage workflow. No wasted words.

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 simple click tool, the description covers the main workflow with document_screenshot and notes coordinate relativity. It does not cover edge cases like right/double-click (though those are in the schema enums) or window focus, but given the presence of schema-enumerated options and the tool's simplicity, the description is sufficiently complete.

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 the schema already documents all parameters including enums and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, though it reinforces the coordinate system for x and y. 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'Click' and clearly identifies the resource (coordinates relative to the MOHO window top-left). This distinguishes the tool from siblings like input_mouseDrag and input_sendKeys, and the mention of document_screenshot indicates a concrete use case.

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 description explicitly recommends using document_screenshot(mode='full') to identify UI element positions before clicking, providing a clear workflow. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the suggested integration with a sibling tool gives practical usage context.

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