browser_click

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and it does well by disclosing auto-scroll behavior, real mouse events, and compatibility with Angular/React SPAs and CSP-strict sites. It does omit details like handling of multiple selector matches or post-click waiting, but the disclosed behavior is meaningful.

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 dense sentences front-load the purpose and then convey selector syntax, behavioral traits, and compatibility examples with no filler. Every clause contributes to correct usage.

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?

For a single-parameter click tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it tells the agent what selector syntax to use, that scrolling is automatic, and how the event is dispatched. It could be slightly more complete by noting what happens after the click (e.g., waiting or return value), but this is a minor gap.

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?

The schema already covers the selector parameter at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving concrete selector examples (#my-button, a.btn-primary, button:text(Get started)) and clarifying that CSS and text-based formats are supported, which aids correct parameter construction beyond the schema's description.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource — 'Click an element on the page' — and further specifies CSS/text selector support and worded examples. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser_double_click and browser_click_xy, which involve different actions or coordinate-based clicks.

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 gives useful context such as auto-scrolling and real mouse events for SPAs/CSP sites, which implies when the tool is valuable, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of browser_double_click, browser_hover, or browser_click_xy. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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