click

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and non-idempotency, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral nuance beyond that: element clicks use the native pointer path so the visible cursor overlay appears. It does not, however, surface the confirmation_token/high-risk gating that the schema implies, so it is adequate but not rich.

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 tightly written sentences with the core capability front-loaded and no filler. Both sentences earn their place: the first defines targeting modes, the second adds the pointer-path behavior.

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 11-parameter mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers targeting and pointer behavior but omits the confirmation flow for high-risk actions and any relationship to the numerous sibling click tools. It is minimally complete but leaves real gaps for selection and risk handling.

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 91%, so the schema documents nearly all 11 parameters in detail. The description only summarizes the three targeting modes (index, name/text, coordinates) that map to element_index/name/coordinate, adding little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Click) and resource (visible element) and enumerates three targeting modes: element index, accessible name/text, and coordinates. The purpose is unambiguous, but it does not distinguish itself from the many sibling click tools (left_click, right_click, double_click, click_text, click_mark), so an agent cannot tell from the description alone why it should pick this over those.

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 implies multiple targeting approaches but gives no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or named alternatives among the dense click-tool siblings. There is no statement of when NOT to use it or how it relates to left_click/click_text, leaving selection entirely to inference.

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