desktop_click

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context — that a from_frame reference guards against occlusion and window movement — but says nothing about verify_content, prefer_a11y, allow_activate, or what happens on a failed/occluded click.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the action is stated first and the safety recommendation second. Every clause earns its place.

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 10-parameter input-mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers the single most consequential parameter and the occlusion hazard, which is the main correctness risk. It is still thin on what the click actually reports back and on the verification/a11y toggles, leaving the agent to guess at several defaults.

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?

Schema coverage is only 40% across 10 parameters, so the description must carry more weight than it does. It meaningfully explains from_frame (source and its safety effect) and clarifies the coordinate space indirectly, but the behavior-altering booleans prefer_a11y, verify_content, allow_activate and the allow_windows filter are documented nowhere in either schema or 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 names a concrete action pair ('Move to (x, y) and click'), which is unambiguous and separable from siblings like desktop_move or desktop_drag. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, but the verb+resource is specific enough for an agent to choose correctly.

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?

Guidance exists but is narrow: 'Prefer passing from_frame from desktop_screenshot so occlusion/window movement is guarded automatically' tells the agent to screenshot first and pass the frame id, which is a real workflow constraint. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over desktop_ui_action or desktop_drag, and none on when NOT to use raw coordinates.

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