click

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses reliability caveats for selector/text approaches, which is useful. However, it doesn't describe what happens on failure (no element found, multiple matches), whether clicks wait for navigation, or the return value/response format since there's no output schema.

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 sentences, zero waste. Front-loaded with the primary action, then delivers a prioritized parameter recommendation in the second sentence. Every phrase 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?

This is a moderately complex tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the action and parameter-preference ranking well, but for a tool with multiple parameter mechanisms and no return-value documentation, it could note what the tool returns or signals on success/failure. Sibling list is rich, so some context on when to use click vs type_text/press_key/goto would improve completeness.

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 100% with all 6 parameters documented in the input schema (x/y coords, text, tab_id, node_id, selector). The description adds value by ranking these mechanisms by reliability (node_id/coords preferred over selector/text). It doesn't add syntax or format details beyond schema, but the prioritization guidance is genuinely useful. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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?

Description states specific verb+resource ('Click on the active tab') with clear scoping. It distinguishes itself slightly from sibling tools by its action (click vs navigate/type/snapshot), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The mechanism guidance about node_id vs coordinates vs Playwright selector adds useful operational context.

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?

Description provides clear guidance on which parameter forms to prefer (node_id or x+y over selector/text) and why (Playwright may be less reliable when Codex shares the page). This is actionable, though it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use click or name alternative tools—selecting among siblings (goto, type_text, press_key) is left implicit.

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