accessibility_click

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that the tool performs an accessibility 'press' rather than a synthetic mouse event. However, it does not mention accessibility permission requirements, behavior when no matching element is found, or potential side effects, leaving some operational uncertainty.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that states the action, mechanism, and advantage over alternatives without wasted words. Every clause contributes to understanding how to use the tool.

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 tool with only three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core invocation details well and explains why it exists. It omits permission prerequisites and error/matching behavior, which are relevant but not fatal given the sibling accessibility_check tool and the simplicity of the operation.

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 the baseline is 3; the description adds minimal new parameter information beyond reinforcing that title is optional and that role/title together select the element. Most semantic detail is already in the 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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Click a UI element by its accessibility role and optional title.' It also distinguishes itself from coordinate-based clicking by explaining that it uses an accessibility 'press' action, which separates it from sibling mouse_click tools.

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 concrete guidance on when this tool is preferable: it is 'more reliable than coordinate-based clicking for buttons, menu items, etc.' This implies usage for accessible UI elements, though it never explicitly names alternatives like mouse_click or specifies exclusion cases where coordinate clicking would be better.

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