wb_select

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Verify selection' usefully signals a post-action read-back, but it omits critical behavior for a select tool: whether change/input events are dispatched, what happens when a value matches no option, multi-select semantics, and whether it works in hidden tabs (the inputMode enum hints at this but the description is silent).

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 zero filler, and the primary action is front-loaded before the exclusion. Nothing to trim.

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?

Six parameters including a nested target object with eight sub-fields, no output schema, and no annotations leave a large disclosure gap. For a mutation tool of this complexity the description should cover matching semantics, failure behavior, and multi-select handling; the current two sentences do not.

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 only 50%, and the description adds almost nothing: it does not explain whether 'values' are matched against option labels or value attributes, how multiple values behave, or how target/selector/inputMode interact. The single mention of 'option values' is the only hint and leaves the core matching semantics ambiguous.

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 gives a specific verb+resource pair ('Set native select option values') plus a verification step, and explicitly scopes out custom dropdown widgets, which lets an agent distinguish this from wb_click/wb_fill. It stops short of naming the sibling to use for custom dropdowns, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

'Does not support custom dropdown widgets' provides an explicit when-not, which is real routing guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to statement and no named alternative for the custom-widget case, so the agent must infer that wb_click is the fallback.

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