click_text

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

Annotations already declare destructive/openWorld/non-idempotent, and the description adds genuine value beyond them by disclosing the pre-input revalidation of screenshot hash, process identity, and geometry (i.e., a stale ocr_id will fail rather than misclick). It omits the high-risk confirmation flow that the confirmation_token parameter implies, and says nothing about failure behavior when revalidation fails.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and target, with no filler. Every clause adds information about what is clicked and what guards the input.

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 destructive, 9-parameter input tool with no output schema and very low schema coverage, the description is too thin: it omits the confirmation-token prerequisite for high-risk clicks, the meaning of match/nth/casefold/click_count, and any error semantics. The revalidation sentence is valuable but does not close the gap.

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 only 22% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. Beyond ocr_id and text it explains nothing about match, nth, casefold, click_count, mouse_button, or the confirmation_token needed for high-risk actions, leaving most call-shaping choices undocumented.

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) plus the resource and selection basis (OCR text identified by a current ocr_id), which distinguishes it from coordinate-based siblings like click/left_click and from click_mark. It does not, however, name those siblings or explain how an ocr_id is obtained, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternatives named, despite a crowded sibling set (click, click_mark, left_click, right_click, activate_menu_item). The phrase 'current ocr_id' faintly implies a prior OCR call but never tells the agent to run `ocr` first or what to do when the ocr_id is stale.

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