click_and_wait

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

The description discloses the key behavior: the tool clicks, then waits, and the operation is atomic. However, it leaves unspecified what happens when both wait_for_url and wait_for_selector are provided, what a timeout does, how navigation is detected, and what the response looks like on success or failure. With no annotations, this is only moderate transparency.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The action sequence is front-loaded and the atomicity benefit is stated in a tight second sentence, making the description easy to scan.

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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, this description is too thin. An agent cannot determine how to provide the click target, how the wait conditions interact, or what constitutes a successful call, so the tool is not fully callable from the description alone.

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 only 40%, with ref, selector, and timeout_ms undocumented. The description does not clarify how to specify the click target via ref versus selector, how timeout_ms behaves, or whether wait_for_url and wait_for_selector are mutually exclusive. It loosely maps 'navigation or selector' to parameters but fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 states a specific compound action: 'Click element then wait for navigation or selector.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from plain click, wait_for, and wait_for_navigation by naming its core sequence and the two wait targets.

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?

Atomic — fewer roundtrips than separate click + wait_for' explicitly positions the tool as the combined alternative to two separate calls. It gives enough context for an agent to prefer it when both actions are needed, though it does not enumerate when not to use it or compare with click_and_snapshot.

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