middle_click

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description only adds the button identity (middle) and the alias relationship; it says nothing about side effects like paste, autoscroll, or new-tab behavior that a middle-click can trigger, nor about the confirmation flow.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the alias framing is slightly vague and could be tightened to state the equivalence more decisively.

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, destructive UI-interaction tool with no output schema, the description is very thin: it omits how clicks resolve (element_index vs coordinates), the coordinate_space semantics, and the confirmation_token flow for high-risk actions. Rich schema coverage mitigates this somewhat, but the interaction model an agent needs is largely absent.

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%, so the schema already documents all 9 parameters, including coordinate_space and element_click_mode enums. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the button identity, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 action (a middle-button click) and clarifies it is an alias equivalent to click with the middle button, which separates it from left_click/right_click/double_click in the sibling set. It is clear but relies on the reader knowing what the referenced 'click' tool does.

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 when-to-use guidance is given. Calling it a 'compatibility alias' hints that the primary click tool may be preferred, but the description never says when to choose middle_click over click, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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