wavexis_nl_click

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

Annotations indicate destructive hint is true but no read-only hint. The description adds side effects: 'Locates the best-matching element via text/semantic matching and triggers a click event.' This clarifies behavior but could elaborate on error cases or matching details.

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 short paragraphs: purpose, usage guidelines, and side effects/returns. Every sentence adds value, no fluff.

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?

Covers purpose, usage, side effects, and return format. Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of schema annotations, it is fairly complete. Could mention potential failure modes or limitations.

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 already provides descriptions for all three parameters (query, auto_wait, session_id), so baseline is 3. The description adds nothing extra about parameters, only about return format.

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 clearly states 'Click an element described in natural language', specifying a verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by noting alternatives: wavexis_click for known CSS selectors and wavexis_nl_fill for filling fields.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'Use wavexis_click when you already know the CSS selector, or wavexis_nl_fill to fill a field described in natural language.' No ambiguity.

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