click

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose scroll-into-view, multi-click semantics, and modifier syntax. It does not describe return values or possible navigation side effects, but the disclosed behaviors are the most decision-relevant ones.

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 tight sentences front-load the core operation and then add only useful behavioral details. No filler or restatement of schema constraints.

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?

Good coverage for the core click behavior, but the schema only requires tabId while a call also needs a target (ref or x/y), and no guidance is given for combining or prioritizing these. With no output schema, return/result behavior is also unaddressed.

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 29%, so the description must add meaning. It maps ref to element references, x/y to viewport coordinates, explains count semantics, and gives modifier examples. Button semantics and the precedence of ref vs coordinates are left 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?

States a clear operation: click an element by ref or at viewport coordinates, and differentiates from sibling tools by naming the action and target modes. It also covers click-count variants without ambiguity.

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?

Gives clear context for the two input modes (ref vs coordinates) and special click variants (count=2, count=3, modifiers). It does not explicitly compare against hover/drag alternatives, but no misleading or exclusionary guidance is present.

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