browser_click

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds the return behavior ('Returns the updated snapshot'), but it omits meaningful behavioral context for a click tool — e.g. that clicking may navigate, submit forms, or trigger irreversible actions, which matters given destructiveHint=true.

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 short sentences with the targeting preference front-loaded and the return value second; every word earns its place and nothing is redundant.

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 7-parameter, zero-required, destructive mutation tool with no output schema and only 43% parameter documentation, the description is thin. It does not explain the button, modifiers, doubleClick, or snapshot options, nor the side effects an agent should anticipate before clicking.

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 only 43%, and four parameters (button, snapshot, modifiers, doubleClick) have no schema description at all. The description only hints at the ref/selector/text triage, which the schema already labels as alternatives, so it does not compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 (an element), plus the three supported targeting modes (ref, selector, text). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling read-only tools like browser_get_text or browser_snapshot, though it does not distinguish itself from the near-identical chrome_click or adjacent interaction tools such as browser_hover.

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 parenthetical '(preferred)' on ref implies a targeting precedence, which is light usage guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, and no mention of prerequisites (e.g. that a ref must come from a prior browser_snapshot) or which siblings to prefer for hovering, typing, or pressing keys.

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