click_element

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and excels by detailing side effects ('may trigger page navigation, form submission, or modify DOM state'), prerequisites ('element must exist and be visible'), and return value ('success confirmation with click coordinates'). It goes beyond basic functionality to inform the agent about potential impacts and requirements.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by side effects, prerequisites, returns, usage examples, and alternatives in a structured manner. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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?

Given the complexity of a click tool with potential side effects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, behavioral traits, prerequisites, returns, and usage context, providing all necessary information for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly without relying on structured fields.

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 has 100% description coverage, providing details on the 'selector' parameter. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, as it only implies the parameter's use ('on a DOM element identified by CSS selector') without extra syntax or format details. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Triggers a native mouse click event') and resource ('on a DOM element identified by CSS selector'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'fill_input' for text input or 'evaluate_js' for complex interactions. It explicitly mentions what the tool does beyond just clicking, including executing handlers and form submissions.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Use this to interact with buttons, links, checkboxes') and when to use alternatives ('Alternatives: 'fill_input' for text input, 'evaluate_js' for complex interactions'). It also includes prerequisites ('element must exist and be visible'), clarifying the context for proper usage.

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