right_click

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does disclose a real behavioral trait beyond the name: the frontmost application must be in the session allowlist or the call errors and does nothing. That failure-mode/auth gating context is valuable and non-obvious. It still omits timing/blocking behavior, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place, with the core action front-loaded and the constraint placed after it. No redundancy.

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 coordinate-based mouse action with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what it does, the effect, and the failure precondition. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 both the coordinate and modifier-key parameters are already documented (including pixel origin and scaling). The description only refers to 'the given coordinates' and adds no meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Right-click at the given coordinates') and adds the observable effect ('Opens a context menu in most applications'), which clearly separates it from left_click, middle_click, double_click and the other mouse 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 mention of opening a context menu gives agents a clear reason to choose this over left_click/middle_click, and the allowlist constraint signals the precondition for use. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative, but the usage context is well implied.

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