wb_dblclick

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one valuable mechanism: auto mode uses CDP on visible tabs and synthetic DOM input on hidden tabs, with the mode reported back. It omits other behavior an agent needs — whether it waits for actionability, how it fails on ambiguous matches, and whether retries occur (that detail lives only in the schema).

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 tight sentences, zero filler, with the action statement front-loaded ahead of the mode-mechanics footnote. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 nested 6-parameter interaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the mode mechanism but leaves gaps: element actionability waiting, failure modes on non-unique targets, and the semantics of the `expect` block. Adequate to invoke, not sufficient to invoke confidently.

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 coverage is 50%, and the nested `target` and `expect` objects have almost no per-field documentation, so the description has room to add value. It only weakly compensates, implying target uniqueness and explaining the inputMode auto/visible/hidden split. Target resolution order (css/ref/name/role) and the `expect` post-conditions remain undocumented in both places.

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 ('double-click') and resource ('unique actionable element'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling wb_click. The 'unique' qualifier signals a targeting precondition. It stops short of explicitly naming wb_click as the single-click alternative.

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?

The verb itself implies when to reach for it (a double-click interaction), and 'unique actionable element' hints that non-unique targets are out of scope. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives like wb_click, and no note on whether the agent should wait or snapshot first.

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