Click

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses the scroll-into-view step, human-like pointer motion, that the response reports what the click led to and what changed, and that covered elements are refused with the covering element identified. It stops short of stating what happens on other failures, whether it waits for navigation, or any timeout behavior.

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 compact sentences with zero waste, front-loading the action sequence and then the return/refusal behavior. 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 4-parameter action tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the mechanism, the response content, and the main failure mode (covered element). Remaining gaps — timing, navigation waiting, non-covered failure modes — are modest given the schema handles most parameter documentation.

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 75%, so the schema already documents id, count ('2 for a double click'), and modifiers; only button lacks a description. The description adds no parameter meaning at all — no mention of double-click, right/middle button, or modifier keys — so the baseline 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 and resource: it scrolls the element into view, moves the pointer along a human path, and clicks it. That is clearly distinct from siblings like type, press, hover, and drag, though the description never explicitly names an alternative to route against.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent infers it should use this when it wants to activate an element by id. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no pointer to press, type, or drag for keyboard or drag interactions.

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