wavexis_nl_fill

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

Description adds context beyond annotations: explains side effects (locates via text/semantic matching, clears element, sets value) and return format. Annotations already indicate destructive and open-world behavior, so description complements them without contradiction.

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?

Description is compact (two short paragraphs), front-loaded with purpose and alternatives, then side effects and return. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary 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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, destructive nature, output schema exists), the description adequately covers purpose, side effects, and return format. It does not repeat schema info but provides enough context for basic usage.

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 0%, meaning the tool description adds no detail about parameters. It implicitly covers 'query' and 'value' but omits 'auto_wait' and 'session_id'. The description does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what can be inferred from names.

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?

Description clearly states 'Fill an element described in natural language with a value', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools wavexis_fill (CSS selector) and wavexis_nl_click (click instead of fill).

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 alternatives: 'Use wavexis_fill when you already know the CSS selector, or wavexis_nl_click to click an element described in natural language.' This provides clear context for tool selection.

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