browser_double_click

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well by explaining that this is a 'true' double-click involving two trusted press/release pairs and escalating clickCount. This adds meaningful detail beyond the tool name, though it does not mention potential side effects or error behavior.

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?

The description is two sentences long, front-loads the primary action and behavioral detail, then immediately gives a concrete usage scenario. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description provides everything an agent needs to decide when to use it and what it will do. The example and contrast with single-click behavior make the context complete.

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 input schema already covers the only parameter, selector, with 'CSS or text selector', so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional semantic detail about the selector format, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool performs a genuine double-click on an element, using specific verbs and resource ('double-click on an element'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like browser_click and browser_right_click by describing the internal behavior of two trusted press/release pairs with escalating clickCount.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: for open-item actions where two single clicks would trigger inline-rename instead, with the concrete OWA month view example. This effectively routes the agent to this tool rather than using browser_click twice or another click variant.

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