Click page element

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses important error behavior (fails with DOCUMENT_HIDDEN unless allowHidden=true) which is useful context. However, it does not mention other behavioral aspects such as potential navigation, scroll behavior, or return values. The disclosed error is beneficial but the overall behavioral coverage is minimal, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 concise sentences efficiently describe the core capability and a critical error condition. The key information is front-loaded, with no redundant text. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has a rich nested 'after' object with waitFor, snapshot, and pageStatus options, but the description does not mention that these abilities exist or guide when to use them. Nor does it describe the return value. While the schema covers parameter details, the description lacks guidance on optional post-action observations, leaving an agent to discover that from schema alone. This is a moderate gap.

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 83%, so the schema documents most parameters. The description adds little beyond what schema descriptions already provide (e.g., documentId's 'returned by list_frames' is duplicated). It clarifies that ref is from a snapshot and that documentId is exact, but these are already implied. A baseline 3 fits given the high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('Click an element'), the resource ('by snapshot ref'), and the scope ('current top document or an exact documentId from list_frames'). It distinguishes from click_at by specifying the input type, making the tool's purpose unambiguous even among siblings.

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 usage (when you have a snapshot ref) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like click_at (for coordinate clicks) or type (for keyboard input). It mentions the DOCUMENT_HIDDEN condition and allowHidden workaround, but no explicit 'when not to use' guidance or alternative tools are cited.

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