qt_mouse_click

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: invalid button values fall back to 'left', invalid elements cause ok:false, and the reason for rejection (hidden/disabled/zero-size/stale id). It doesn't explicitly say whether the click performs real hit testing, though the contrast with the 'real Qt input pipeline' strongly implies it, so a small gap remains.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: purpose first, then usage guidance, parameter semantics, and error handling. Every sentence adds value without being bloated.

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?

Given an output schema exists and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral context: what the tool does, when to use alternatives, parameter semantics, and failure behavior. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool confidently.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents the allowed values for button and modifiers, including fallback behavior, which the schema does not provide. session_id and element_id are not elaborated, but their roles are clear from their names and the schema's required fields.

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 first sentence states a specific action ('Send a mouse click to a UI element') with a qualifier ('direct delivery') that immediately differentiates it from sibling tools like qt_mouse_click_region and qt_mouse_click_at. The rest of the description reinforces this distinction.

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 names alternative tools (qt_mouse_click_region, qt_mouse_click_at) and states when they should be used instead (QML custom components). It also explains the direct-delivery tradeoff ('cheapest option' for plain QtWidgets), giving clear selection guidance.

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