Click with the mouse

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds genuinely new context: the mandatory intent contract and the fact that destructive, bulk-submission, and close-all actions surface an explicit user prompt before proceeding. It also clarifies that the click only happens after an optional move when coordinates are null. It does not describe failure behavior or how the click is confirmed as landed.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the mandatory-intent rule and the safety escalation. Every sentence contributes, with only minor redundancy between 'intent is mandatory' and the schema's own constraint.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the action semantics, coordinate handling, and the confirmation gate for risky actions. What remains thin is post-click behavior (waiting for UI response, failure reporting) and any mention of target_description, which is the only unaddressed field.

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 only 33%, so the description carries real weight: it explains that x/y are conditional (despite being listed as required with null allowed), that button is a single left/right choice, and that clicks covers single or double. target_description is not mentioned at all, and 'left double click' slightly understates that the schema permits clicks=2 with the right button, leaving a gap for an agent to resolve.

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 opens with a specific verb and effect ('Move to x/y if supplied, then perform one left/right click or a left double click'), which tells an agent exactly what the call does relative to siblings like mouse_move or mouse_drag. It stops short of naming those siblings, so the differentiation is implied by the move-then-click phrasing rather than stated.

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?

It states a hard requirement for the intent argument and flags which classes of action trigger an explicit user prompt, which implies when this tool is sanctioned. However, it never says when to pick mouse_click over mouse_move, mouse_drag, or a double-click alternative, and offers no explicit 'do not use for' guidance.

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