advanced_click

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

The description adds a key behavioral constraint not provided by annotations: 'Simulates a real mouse event at screen coordinates, so the target window must be visible and in the foreground.' This is valuable beyond the 'destructiveHint: false' annotation. It could mention other side effects (e.g., mouse movement) but covers the most critical operational requirement.

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?

The description is three sentences long, front-loading the core action and purpose, then use cases, then a constraint. Every sentence is informative and there is no superfluous text. It is highly concise and well-structured.

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 the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no output schema), the description covers main use cases but lacks details on return values, error conditions, and edge cases such as what happens when both elementId and coordinates are provided or how interClickDelayMs works. It is adequate but incomplete for a tool with many configurable options.

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 63%, so baseline is 3. The description provides a high-level summary of parameters (modifier keys, multiple clicks, duration) but does not add specific syntax, validation rules, or interaction behavior beyond what the schema provides. It does not detail parameter priority (elementId vs x+y) or the meaning of interClickDelayMs.

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 action ('Perform a click'), the targets ('element or absolute screen coordinates'), and variations ('modifier keys, multiple clicks, custom duration'). It lists specific use cases (right-click, double-click, Ctrl+click, coordinate-based clicks) which distinguish it from the simpler sibling 'click_element'.

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 explicitly says 'Use for right-click, double-click, Ctrl+click, or coordinate-based clicks', providing clear context for when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state when to use the simpler 'click_element' instead, so it lacks explicit exclusion alternatives.

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