click

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It proactively explains the default timeout behavior and the exception raised when the element is not found, which is valuable. It does not mention the scroll parameter's default behavior or visibility requirements, but the core failure/success semantics are well covered.

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, front-loads the primary purpose, and includes a concrete example. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition 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 relatively simple clicking tool, the description provides selector syntax, timeout semantics, and error behavior. The output schema exists so return values are not a gap. The only meaningful omission is the scroll parameter's behavior and any interaction with visibility.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description must compensate. It adds real meaning to 'selector' by specifying CSS selector or text syntax, and explains the timeout parameter's default behavior. However, the 'scroll' parameter is not described at all, leaving one of three parameters undocumented.

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 action ('click') and the resource (an element matched by CSS selector or text), including an explicit example. It is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling click variants such as click_visible_elements or click_nth_element.

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 explains what selectors are accepted but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling click-related tools. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given, so the agent must infer the use case.

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