glass_click

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the click is known to be an input action rather than a read-only or outright destructive operation. The description adds the modifier-held-during-action behavior and coordinate-relative semantics, but it does not disclose potential side effects, focus requirements, or failure modes. This is adequate but not highly transparent given the action-oriented nature of the tool.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence serves a purpose: the coordinate mechanism, the parameter variants, the modifier behavior, and the batching alternative via glass_do. There is no filler or redundant elaboration.

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 five-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential call context: coordinate frame, click variants, modifier usage, and an alternative for batching. It could mention window focus or the need to select a target window beforehand, but that is likely handled by the surrounding workflow and sibling tools. Overall, an agent has enough to invoke this tool correctly.

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 the schema fully documents x, y, count, button, and modifiers. The description largely restates these values ('button: left|right|middle; count for multi-click') and gives examples already present in the schema. It adds little meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 at window-relative coordinates.' This clearly identifies the tool's action and distinguishes it from element-based siblings like glass_click_element, since it works from raw coordinates rather than UI elements. The button/count/modifiers details further pin down the operation.

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 routing guidance: when at least two subsequent actions or waits are known, use glass_do instead of issuing separate calls. This is a concrete alternative with a clear condition. It does not explicitly contrast with glass_click_element, but the 'window-relative coordinates' language makes the coordinate-based use case reasonably clear.

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