Click viewport coordinates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the DOCUMENT_HIDDEN failure mode and the allowHidden=true override, which is useful. However, it does not describe return values, navigation side effects, or any post-click behavior, so the transparency is adequate but incomplete.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and target, and no filler. Every clause earns its place: top document vs iframe, coordinate space, and hidden-document failure behavior.

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?

For a 7-parameter tool with a nested 'after' object and no output schema, the description covers the core invocation details: coordinates, document targeting, and hidden-document handling. Optional wait/snapshot behavior is documented in the schema, so the description is mostly complete for correct tool selection and basic invocation, though return behavior is not addressed.

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?

The schema leaves x and y as bare numbers, but the description adds crucial meaning by distinguishing tabViewport coordinates from frameViewport coordinates and linking the latter to an exact iframe documentId. With 71% schema description coverage, this is meaningful compensation beyond the structured schema.

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 verb ('Click'), a precise resource ('tabViewport coordinates' or 'frameViewport coordinates'), and the exact targeting context (top document vs iframe documentId). It clearly distinguishes click_at from the sibling click tool by emphasizing coordinate-based targeting rather than element/selector-based clicking.

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 clear context for when to use it: click in the top document, or in an exact iframe by documentId. It also explains the hidden-document failure and allowHidden override. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or say 'do not use when a selector is available,' but the coordinate-space wording makes the intended use clear.

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