triple_click

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered downstream. The description adds only that the gesture is a triple left click, with no mention of the high-risk confirmation_token flow referenced in the schema or any side effects. Minimal added context.

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 zero filler, so nothing is wasted. But for a 9-parameter, destructive, non-idempotent interaction tool, this level of brevity leaves the definition under-specified rather than efficient.

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 9 parameters, a destructive write profile, a confirmation-token mechanism, and no output schema, the description omits prerequisites, high-risk confirmation behavior, and any routing to alternatives. It is not complete enough for an agent to call this confidently versus its many click-family siblings.

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, app selectors, element targeting, coordinate spaces, and the confirmation token. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable given the coverage but earns no credit above the baseline.

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?

Names a specific action (triple left click) and flags it as a compatibility alias, which tells the agent it's a legacy entry point. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from the obvious siblings (click, double_click, left_click) or explain why a distinct triple-click tool exists. A vague but minimally informative purpose.

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 phrase 'compatibility alias' hints that this exists for backward compatibility, implying new callers should prefer a canonical tool, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative is given. The agent must guess between this and click/double_click.

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