Submit a form on behalf of the user (Wix Forms). Call list_forms first to get the formId and field keys. Returns a submissionId on success.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | Yes | Key-value pairs matching the field keys from list_forms. Example: { "field_1": "João", "field_2": "joao@email.com" } | |
| formId | Yes | Form ID from list_forms. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states 'Submit a form' (a mutation) and returns a submissionId, but lacks details on authentication requirements, side effects, idempotency, or error behavior. This is minimal disclosure for a write 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?
Two sentences: first states the action, second gives prerequisite and return value. No filler, every sentence adds value.
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?
Given the simplicity (2 params, both documented) and lack of output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, and success return. It could mention error handling or validation, but is sufficient for basic usage.
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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds an example for the 'fields' parameter, which also appears in the schema. It does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 clearly states 'Submit a form on behalf of the user (Wix Forms)' with a specific verb and resource. It also mentions the return value (submissionId), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_booking or create_checkout, though the name and context make the purpose distinct.
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?
Provides explicit prerequisite: 'Call list_forms first to get the formId and field keys.' This gives clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternatives, which would improve guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose, with detailed descriptions that prevent ambiguity. Overlaps like create_booking vs request_reservation are clarified by domain (appointments vs restaurant) and mechanics.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_booking, list_events, search_places). The same conjugation style (snake_case) is used throughout, with no mixing of conventions.
At 28 tools, the set is slightly larger than the typical well-scoped range (3-15), but each tool corresponds to a distinct feature of the neighborhood directory, making the count reasonable for the breadth of functionality.
The tool surface covers all major user-facing actions: searching, browsing, booking, purchasing, and retrieving information. No obvious gaps exist for the stated purpose of a neighborhood directory.
