browser_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 only restates the click action and the ref source; it does not disclose whether the click waits for navigation, how stale or missing refs are handled, or what side effects occur when clicking (e.g., form submission, navigation, page change).

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 with no wasted words. The primary action and required input are front-loaded, and the additional tab-targeting capability is mentioned briefly without unnecessary detail.

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 description is minimally adequate for an agent to understand what the tool does and how to provide a ref, but it lacks behavioral context such as post-click behavior, error handling, and the agentId routing model. Since there are no annotations and no output schema, the agent is left guessing about side effects and return values.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema: it reinforces that ref comes from browser_snapshot and that tabId selects a tab, but it does not explain agentId routing, element, or doubleClick behavior beyond what the schema already states.

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), a specific resource (element via its ref from browser_snapshot), and a key capability (targeting a specific tab via tabId). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like browser_hover, browser_press_key, and browser_type.

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 description implies the correct workflow: obtain a ref from browser_snapshot, then use it to click. It also indicates tabId can target a non-active tab. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, but its role as the click tool among siblings is fairly unambiguous.

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