mouse_click

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

With no annotations, the description is the only behavioral disclosure. It communicates two non-obvious behaviors: `window` is focused first, and coordinates remain absolute even after focusing. This helps an agent avoid a common API misuse. It does not mention button-specific behavior or effect of `double`, but those are more parameter-level semantics.

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 short sentences with zero filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the window/coordinate caveat is placed exactly where it adds value. No redundant restatement of tool name or basic click meaning.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation. The description covers the core invocation logic: whether to provide coordinates or click at current position, and how `window` affects them. It does not document button or double behavior, but their defaults and names are obvious enough for safe basic 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives meaning to `x`/`y` as optional (clicks at current position when omitted) and clarifies `window` behavior with a note on absolute coordinates. However, it adds nothing about `button` choices or the `double` boolean beyond their defaults, leaving full compensation incomplete.

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 the specific action ('Click') and the object (coordinates or current cursor position), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like `click_text` (clicks on text) and `mouse_move`/`mouse_scroll` (no click). The nuance about `window` and absolute coordinates further scopes the 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 description implies when to use this tool (when you need to click at specific screen coordinates or at the current cursor position) but provides no explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives such as `click_text` for text-based click. It lacks clear guidance among the 27 sibling automation tools.

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