wavexis_fill

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true; description adds specific side effects: clears target, sets value, fires single input event. Also documents return format with status and error details. No contradictions.

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?

Concise, well-structured: purpose first, then usage guidelines, side effects, and return format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given sibling tools, annotations, and schema descriptions, the description fully covers behavior, side effects, and return format. Output schema exists but description still documents return format explicitly.

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?

Input schema includes detailed descriptions for all parameters (e.g., selector, value). Description does not add additional parameter info but maintains baseline. Context signal indicates schema description coverage 0% but schema clearly has descriptions; if coverage were actually 0%, would need to compensate.

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?

Clearly states 'Fill an input element with a value, replacing existing content.' Explicitly contrasts with sibling tools wavexis_type and wavexis_fill_form, specifying unique verb-resource-action.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use wavexis_type for character-by-character typing with key events, or wavexis_fill_form when filling multiple fields in one call.' This clearly differentiates usage scenarios.

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