qt_mouse_click_region

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the click routes through the real Qt input pipeline with real hit testing and provides a concrete example, offering meaningful behavioral context beyond a generic 'click'.

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 concise sentences that state the action and the key differentiator without waste. The description is front-loaded with the core action and the explanatory note is well-placed.

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 operation with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and behavioral nuance. The missing parameter details are a minor gap, but the overall picture is clear for an agent to decide and invoke the tool.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain each parameter, but it only implicitly references element_id via 'element' and doesn't mention session_id, button, or modifiers. Button and modifiers have no description either in schema or description, leaving their semantics to inference from names alone.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Click at the center') and resource ('an element's on-screen region'), and explicitly contrasts with qt_mouse_click, distinguishing this tool's behavior from the sibling. The purpose is unmistakable.

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 qt_mouse_click as an alternative and explains the difference (real hit testing vs direct delivery), providing clear guidance on when to choose this tool. However, it doesn't mention other siblings like qt_mouse_click_at, which could also be relevant.

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