click_at_xy

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the use of CDP, a full click sequence, the isTrusted:true property, and the tab attachment requirement. However, it does not mention coordinate space, scrolling behavior, or potential outcomes like clicks outside the viewport.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences with a concrete example at the front. Every sentence and phrase adds useful information, with no wasted words.

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 simple click tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives the essential behavior and tab handling. It is adequate but incomplete: an agent is left to infer coordinate space, edge cases, and return behavior.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. The tab parameter is explicitly explained, and the example click_at_xy(100, 200) maps the first two arguments to x and y. Yet the description does not clarify coordinate units or the coordinate 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 identifies the action as a CDP-based complete mouse click sequence and uses the example click_at_xy(100, 200) to indicate coordinate-based operation. Although it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling click tools, the name and example make the purpose unambiguous.

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 only usage guidance is that the optional tab parameter requires an already-attached tab and defaults to the active tab. There is no indication of when to prefer this tool over click_text, click_selector, or other sibling tools, leaving the selection decision largely to the agent.

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