real_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 reveals the mechanism (OS-level SendInput), coordinate space (viewport), and a key behavior (bypassing synthetic-click-ignoring elements), but it does not mention potential side effects, active-tab requirements, or failure behavior. This is useful but not fully transparent.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The key mechanism and use case are introduced immediately, and every word adds value.

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 tool with five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides the core click semantics and a motivating use case, but it omits explanation of the required 'gate' parameter's safety role and the optional origin/frameId parameters. It is adequate for a simple click action but leaves meaningful gaps for correct invocation in more complex scenarios.

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 60%, and the description adds meaning by clarifying that x and y are viewport coordinates, which is not present in their schema entries. However, it does not explain gate, origin, or frameId beyond the partial schema descriptions, leaving some parameter semantics to inference.

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 performs a genuine OS-level click via SendInput at viewport coordinates, which is a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'click' tool by emphasizing 'GENUINE OS-level' and the ability to bypass synthetic-click-ignoring elements.

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 'bypasses synthetic-click-ignoring submit buttons' provides a clear context for when this tool should be preferred over a synthetic click. It does not explicitly name the sibling alternative or state when not to use it, but the intended use case is reasonably clear.

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