mouse_click

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the click action and defaults already present in the schema, and it omits key operational details such as whether coordinates are global screen coordinates, whether the pointer moves first, or whether accessibility permissions are required.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and compresses supported options and defaults efficiently.

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 side-effecting input tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves important operational details unspecified, such as coordinate system, coordinate origin, and pointer movement behavior. It is minimally viable for basic calls but incomplete for reliable use alongside the sibling mouse and screen tools.

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's mention of button variants and click counts adds little beyond what the parameter descriptions already state, and it does not clarify coordinate units or origin.

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 specific action ('Click the mouse at specified coordinates') and enumerates supported button and click-count variants. This is enough to distinguish it from sibling mouse tools like mouse_move and mouse_drag, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use mouse_click versus related tools such as mouse_move, mouse_drag, accessibility_click, or animation_click. The only implied usage is the bare action described in the first sentence.

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