clikta_click

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. It reveals that clicks are logged as steps, that locator strategies are prioritized for resilience, and that the tool has a safety guardrail against destructive actions unless confirm:true. This goes well beyond a basic 'click' description, though it doesn't cover error handling or return 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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence explains locator options, and the third covers the safety guardrail. Every sentence contributes value, with no unnecessary 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?

Given the 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main use case and key behaviors (locating, logging, destructive guardrail). It does not mention failure modes (e.g., element not found, timeouts) or what happens after a click, but these are not critical for basic usage and the sibling context helps fill the gaps.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It explains that role and name are used together, text is an alternative, and selector is a last resort. It also clarifies the confirm parameter's role in overriding the destructive-action check. This directly informs parameter selection and usage.

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 function: 'Click an element in the active recording's browser and log it as a step.' It uses a specific verb ('click') and resource ('element in active recording's browser'), and the sibling tools (type, navigate, screenshot) make the distinction obvious.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (any time you need to click an element) and offers guidance on locator choice: 'role/text are more resilient than raw CSS.' It also explains the confirm override for destructive elements. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools (e.g., 'use this instead of clikta_type'), though the context implies it.

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