window_click

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the click is background, does not move the physical cursor, and does not steal focus. These are the key behavioral traits needed to use the tool safely, though it does not mention error cases or return values.

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 a single focused sentence that front-loads the core action, then immediately states the key constraints. There is no redundant or vague 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 click action, the description plus a fully documented schema provides enough to invoke the tool correctly. It lacks an explicit return/error behavior description, which is a minor gap given the absence of an output schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds a small clarifying notion that x/y are 'relative coordinates inside the target window,' but otherwise does not go beyond the schema for button, clicks, or window_id.

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 a specific action ('Send a background mouse click') targeted at a specific resource ('inside the target window'), with unique coordinates. This immediately distinguishes it from sibling keyboard tools like window_type, window_send_key, and capture_window.

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 phrase 'background... without moving the user's physical mouse cursor or stealing focus' gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate: interaction that should not disturb the user. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the usage context is strong.

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