Mouse click

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the coordinate space, which is useful, but says nothing about blocking behavior, what happens with out-of-bounds coordinates, whether the cursor is moved as a side effect, or whether the click targets whatever is focused — all relevant for an input-injection tool.

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?

A single sentence with the critical coordinate-frame constraint front-loaded in parentheses. Nothing superfluous and no buried information.

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?

The tool is simple, and the coordinate-space clarification covers the biggest mistake mode. But with no annotations, no output schema, and half the parameters undocumented, an agent still lacks confirmation of click semantics (single vs double, button default, failure behavior).

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 50%: x/y are documented in the schema, while 'button' (enum) and especially 'double' are undocumented in both places. The description does add real value by clarifying that coordinates are full-host-screen absolute pixels rather than window-relative, but it never explains that 'double' produces a double-click.

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 (clicks) and resource (absolute screen coordinates) and pins the coordinate frame to 'pixels of the full host screen', which is the key ambiguity for a GUI-automation tool. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like move_mouse or drag, and double-click is left to a parameter rather than called out.

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 pointer to 'screenshot metadata' implies the workflow (screenshot first, then click at those coordinates), but this is only implied. There is no explicit guidance on when to click versus drag/scroll/move_mouse, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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