wb_click

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and covers only fragments: expect verifies the result, and auto-follow is gated on opener evidence. It says nothing about actionability waiting, what happens if the target is ambiguous or missing (notably, zero parameters are required), flakiness/retry behavior, or the return value.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its uniqueness constraint. Dense but not padded, though the phrasing is telegraphic enough that a few clauses read as unexplained jargon.

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 9-parameter tool with nested target and expect objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin — it omits failure semantics, what constitutes a successful click result, and how target resolution errors surface. The absence of required parameters makes the omission of "what happens when target is null" a real gap.

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 44%, so meaningful compensation is needed. The description clarifies the semantics of expect (result verification) and the followNewTab default behavior, but leaves target vs selector precedence, button, session, and both timeout parameters entirely to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Click a unique actionable target") and reveals a non-obvious precondition: the target must resolve to a single element. It does not name how it differs from wb_dblclick, wb_hover, or wb_check, so the agent must infer the boundary from the verb alone.

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?

"Auto uses CDP in visible tabs, DOM in hidden tabs" gives context for which mode fires, but there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-siblings guidance and no exclusion of the near-identical click alternatives. The "auto-follow requires opener evidence" line is a constraint, not routing guidance.

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