Desktop 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 does not disclose that a click mutates UI state, whether the target element must be visible/focused, what the headed flag changes, or any failure modes when the ref is stale — a significant gap for a mutating interaction 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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the key mechanism is stated immediately. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification given what is omitted.

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 not be explained, but with zero annotation coverage and zero schema coverage the description should cover the headed parameter, the snapshot prerequisite, and side-effect/error behavior. None of those are addressed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It does explain the ref_id format (@snapshot_id:eN), which is genuinely useful and not in the schema, but the headed parameter is left entirely undefined.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Click an element") plus the mechanism ("qualified snapshot reference"), so an agent knows exactly what operation this performs. It does not differentiate from nearby siblings such as desktop_press or desktop_action, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, but the phrase "using its qualified snapshot reference" implies the prerequisite workflow: a snapshot (and likely desktop_find) must precede the click. That dependency is inferable rather than stated.

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