Browser Click

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the visibility wait, the click, and the post-click stabilization behavior (AJAX, animations, re-renders), plus the non-obvious constraint that iframe clicks always use the simple DOM-click path because mouse simulation only works on the main page. It stops short of describing failure behavior (e.g., what happens if the selector matches nothing or the element never becomes visible).

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and examples, then layered constraints (iframes, shadow DOM). Dense but each sentence carries operational information; slightly long, and the parenthetical about humanClick could be tighter.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the mechanism, the timing behavior, and the two main selection edge cases. It is nearly complete; only error/empty-match handling and return confirmation are absent.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description restates the 'pierce/' convention and the frameIndex→simple-click interaction, which largely duplicates what the schema already says rather than adding new format or constraint meaning.

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 concrete verb+resource ('Click any element on the page by CSS selector') and enumerates the target element types (buttons, links, menus, dropdowns, checkboxes, tabs). The inline selector examples make it immediately distinguishable from siblings like browser_hover, browser_select_option, or browser_type.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Use browser_get_dom first if you need to find the right selector', names browser_frames as the source of frameIndex, and states the shadow-DOM escape hatch ('pierce/' prefix). It also implies when-not via the humanClick/frameIndex tradeoff.

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