right_click

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this is an unsafe, non-idempotent, open-world mutation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond those annotations, such as whether the action needs confirmation or how the pointer is positioned.

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 sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the core fact that it is an alias for a right-button click. It is appropriately sized for an alias tool, though the term 'compatibility' could be clearer.

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 rich schema and annotations, the description covers the essential action but omits any usage context for a 9-parameter, destructive tool. It is minimally adequate as an alias pointer but leaves the agent to rely entirely on the schema and annotations for safe invocation.

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 fully documents all 9 parameters. The description mentions no parameters, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness, but it adds no extra semantics such as default coordinate space or the meaning of confirmation_token.

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 right-button click implemented as a compatibility alias for click. It distinguishes itself from siblings like left_click and middle_click by naming the button, though 'compatibility alias' adds slight ambiguity about whether it is the preferred or legacy tool.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus click or the other button-specific siblings. 'Compatibility alias' weakly implies a legacy alternative, but the agent is left to infer whether right_click or click should be preferred.

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