Click

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing beyond the schema: no focus/activation prerequisites, no failure behavior when an element id does not resolve, no statement of what state the click mutates, and no mention of the look_after screenshot behavior. 'Supports right-click and double-click' largely restates the button enum and the count parameter description already in the schema.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the preferred targeting method before the fallback, so the most important selection rule is read first. Nothing is padded, though the parenthetical nesting (ui_elements / look / image N) makes it slightly harder to parse.

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 an 8-parameter, zero-required tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core targeting semantics but leaves out failure handling, whether it focuses the target window first, and any mention of the look_after return behavior. Adequate to invoke the tool on the happy path, incomplete for the edge cases an agent will hit.

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?

With only 50% schema description coverage, the description does meaningful work: it explains that element is an id sourced from ui_elements, that x/y are pixels in the last screenshot by default, and how the `image` index reinterprets those coordinates. It omits the `screen` boolean's distinction between screen points and screenshot pixels, which the schema covers but the description does not reinforce.

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 specific verb and resource ('Click on the screen') and distinguishes its two targeting modes by naming the sibling tools that supply each input (ui_elements for element ids, look/image for pixels). It stops short of clarifying how this desktop-level click differs from the sibling browser_click, leaving one purpose boundary implicit.

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?

Explicitly marks the element-id path as 'preferred' over raw x/y coordinates and tells the agent where each targeting value originates, which is real selection guidance. It gives no when/when-not guidance against alternatives such as browser_click or drag, so it is clear but not complete.

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