browser_click

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal one real behavioral trait: element resolution follows a ref-first, then CSS-selector/visible-text fallback chain. It says nothing about failure behavior when no element matches, auto-waiting, scrolling into view, or navigation side effects.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the targeting preference immediately after; no filler. It is perhaps overly terse for a tool with failure modes, but nothing is wasted.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should be doing more work: post-click behavior (navigation waits, errors when the target is missing, whether text matching is case-sensitive beyond the exact flag) is unaddressed. The reliance on the fully-documented schema keeps it minimally viable.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description adds only the precedence among those parameters (ref over selector/text), and the ref-source hint largely duplicates the schema's "Ref like e12 from the last snapshot".

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Click an element") that is immediately distinguishable from siblings like browser_type, browser_press, and browser_evaluate. It does not explicitly contrast with those siblings, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

Gives an explicit preference among the tool's own targeting options ("Prefer ref from the latest browser_snapshot / browser_find") and names two siblings as the source of that ref. However, it never says when to click vs. use browser_press, browser_type, or browser_evaluate, so tool-selection guidance is only implied.

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