browser_click

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

The description discloses that the tool returns what changed after the click, which is useful behavioral context. However, with no annotations provided, it doesn't disclose potential side effects like navigation, page reloads, or whether the click is awaited. The return behavior is mentioned but not detailed.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The priority order is front-loaded and the return behavior is stated succinctly. Every sentence earns its place.

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 three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential targeting logic and return behavior. However, it lacks details on edge cases like what happens if multiple elements match, whether the click waits for navigation, or how errors are surfaced. Given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate but not complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the priority order of the three parameters (ref, selector, text), which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't describe the format or semantics of each parameter (e.g., what a 'ref' looks like, how 'text' matching works), leaving gaps.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Click element') and provides a clear priority order for identifying the target (ref, then selector, then text). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like browser_fill and browser_hover by focusing on clicking, though it doesn't explicitly name those 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?

The description gives explicit guidance on how to choose parameters: prefer 'ref' from browser_elements/browser_mark_screenshot, then 'selector', then 'text'. This is clear usage context, though it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser_hover or browser_fill.

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