qt_mouse_press

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does so exceptionally well, highlighting the stateful nature of the press (must release in the same session), the risk of leaving the app in a pressed/dragging state, and the coordinate interpretation (logical pixels relative to element top-left, omitted means center).

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior, immediately followed by pairing guidance and a critical warning. Every sentence earns its place; no repetition or filler.

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 the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, how it relates to siblings, coordinate behavior, and the critical statefulness warning. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be described, and the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains the x/y parameters (optional, both-or-neither, relative coordinates, default to center). It does not elaborate on 'button' or 'modifiers', though their names and schema defaults provide reasonable clues. This is strong compensation but not complete.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Press a mouse button on an element WITHOUT releasing it.' It clearly differentiates this from a complete click and references sibling tools like qt_mouse_release and qt_mouse_move, making the tool's unique purpose unambiguous.

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 description provides explicit usage guidance: pair with qt_mouse_release to split a click, or use qt_mouse_move for a drag (press -> move -> release). It also explains the optional coordinate semantics and warns about the release requirement, giving the agent clear context for when and how to use this tool.

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