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, and the description only states it returns a submissionId on success. It does not disclose side effects, idempotency, authentication needs, or error behavior, which are critical for a mutation tool.
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, no filler. The first sentence states purpose and domain, the second gives prerequisite and return value. Every part is useful and front-loaded.
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?
The description covers purpose, prerequisites, and return value. For a simple form submission tool, this is fairly complete. Minor omission: no mention of error scenarios or what happens on failure, but acceptable given tool simplicity.
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?
With 100% schema coverage, the description adds value by explaining the relationship to list_forms and providing an example of key-value pairs. This helps the agent understand how to construct the fields parameter beyond 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?
The description clearly states the action ('Submit a form') and the resource ('on behalf of the user (Wix Forms)'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_forms, create_booking, etc., by specifying the domain and return value.
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 provides a clear prerequisite: 'Call list_forms first to get the formId and field keys.' This guides the agent on preparation, but it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool mentions.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action (e.g., bookings, events, places, menus, forms), with detailed descriptions that clearly differentiate even similar operations like create_booking vs. reserve_event_tickets. No two tools overlap in purpose.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using lowercase and underscores (e.g., create_booking, get_availability, list_events). Verbs are semantically appropriate (create, get, list, search, submit) and predictable.
28 tools is slightly above the typical 3-15 range, but the breadth of the neighborhood directory domain justifies each tool. The count feels dense but not excessive, with no redundant tools.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle of a neighborhood directory: place search, restaurant menus, events, movie showtimes, booking, reviews, blog, guides, offers, loyalty, forms, and profiles. Obvious gaps like review creation are absent but likely out of scope.
