click

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that real CDP mouse events are dispatched, that a click opening a new tab is reported in the response, and that DOM diff results arrive with the next response unless wait_for_diff is set. These are significant behavioral details beyond the schema.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the tool's purpose and target options; the second and third cover event dispatch and async behavior. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers targeting modes, event behavior, new-tab reporting, and diff timing, which is substantial given the absence of annotations and output schema. It does not explicitly define precedence when multiple target parameters are supplied, though the schema's 'preferred' and 'fallback' labels mitigate that gap.

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?

All six parameters are fully described in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful cross-parameter semantics: it clarifies the relationship between x/y, explains that text targeting works without view_page, and highlights the wait_for_diff latency trade-off.

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 names a specific verb (Click) and enumerates the supported target strategies: ref, CSS selector, visible text, and viewport x/y for canvas/pixel-precise targets. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like type, press_key, and scroll.

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 strong within-tool usage guidance: ref is preferred, selector is a fallback, text needs no view_page, and x/y is for canvas/pixel-precise targets. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like type or fill_form, but the targeting guidance is clear enough to select the correct mode.

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