double_click

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false, and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that it is a compatibility alias, which is a weak hint about deprecation/legacy status but discloses nothing about the double-click mechanics, target resolution order (name vs coordinates vs element_index), or confirmation requirements.

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?

One short sentence with no filler and the action front-loaded. It is efficiently sized, though the terseness is a symptom of under-specification rather than deliberate economy.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, destructive and non-idempotent annotations, and a confirmation-token flow, a single sentence is far too thin. It omits the target-resolution strategy and any return/failure behavior the agent needs to call it reliably.

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 100% across all 9 parameters, so the schema fully documents coordinates, selectors, and the confirmation token. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, which lands at the baseline for high coverage.

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 phrase 'double left click' names a specific action, but 'Compatibility alias' is ambiguous about what it aliases, and the description never distinguishes it from siblings like left_click, click, or triple_click beyond the implicit click count.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus left_click or click, no mention of the confirmation_token workflow that the schema implies for high-risk actions, and no prerequisites stated.

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