browser_click

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('click') but doesn't describe what happens after clicking (e.g., page navigation, event triggers, error handling). It mentions using a 'ref from snapshot' but doesn't explain how snapshots relate or if this requires prior browser_snapshot calls. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Click an element on the page') and specifies methods. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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?

Given the complexity of a browser interaction tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error cases, dependencies on other tools (e.g., browser_snapshot), or what the tool returns. For a mutation tool in a browser context, more detail is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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 50% (2 of 4 parameters have descriptions: ref and selector). The description adds value by explaining the purpose of ref ('from snapshot') and selector ('CSS selector'), which clarifies beyond the schema's basic descriptions. However, it doesn't cover button or doubleClick parameters, leaving half the parameters without semantic context in either schema or description, resulting in a baseline score.

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 clearly states the action ('click') and target ('element on the page'), specifying two methods ('ref from snapshot' or 'CSS selector'). It distinguishes from siblings like browser_hover (hovering) and browser_press_key (keyboard input), though not explicitly. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from browser_click_text (which may be for text-specific clicking), leaving some ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose ref vs. selector, or when to use browser_click_text instead. The description implies usage for clicking elements but offers no context on prerequisites, such as needing a browser session or snapshot, or exclusions for non-interactive elements.

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