wait_for_element_not_visible

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses the default 7-second timeout when 0 or None is passed and states that an exception is raised if the element remains visible. This is strong behavioral disclosure for a simple wait operation.

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?

The description is three concise sentences: the action is front-loaded, followed by the timeout rule and failure behavior. There is no filler or redundant content.

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 simple wait utility, the description covers the trigger condition, timeout behavior, and exception on failure, which are the essential details for invocation. It does not define visibility precisely or explain selector format, but those are minor given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema.

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?

The description adds important meaning for the timeout parameter, including the 0/None default behavior. However, the selector parameter is not described beyond its name and the general reference to 'an element', leaving a partial gap given the schema has no parameter descriptions.

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 uses a specific action ('Wait until') and target state ('element is no longer visible on the page'), making the tool's purpose clear. It is semantically distinct from siblings like wait_for_element_visible and wait_for_element_absent, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 description makes the intended use clear by describing a wait condition and failure behavior, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over closely related alternatives such as wait_for_element_absent. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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