click

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal several behaviors: drag simulation with biological friction, iframe targeting, hover-before-click, video player API control, and automatic retry with fallback selectors. However, it omits side effects like auto-dismissing dialogs, force-click via JavaScript, and potential navigation outcomes from clicking.

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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the core action and then lists supported capabilities. It is efficient with no filler, though the feature list is somewhat packed and could benefit from slight structural separation.

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 tool with 21 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description gives a useful high-level summary but relies heavily on the schema for invocation details. It does not address return behavior or clarify which combinations of options are mutually exclusive or complementary, leaving moderate gaps for an agent selecting parameters.

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 90%, so the input schema already documents most parameter meanings. The description only names feature areas like dragTo and iframe handling without adding semantic detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline for high coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Click or drag a page element by CSS selector or annotation ID.' It clearly states what the tool does and how elements are targeted, and the click/drag scope distinguishes it from sibling input tools like type and press_key.

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 no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as type, press_key, or see_page. Usage context is only implied by the tool name and the action verb, with no exclusions or routing recommendations.

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