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?
With no annotations, the description says it submits a form and returns a submissionId. It does not disclose error handling, idempotency, or side effects, which is a gap 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 succinct sentences: one for purpose and prerequisite, one for return value. No unnecessary words.
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 two simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers prerequisite, parameter origin, and return value. Could mention error scenarios, but adequate for a straightforward submission.
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 100%, but description adds value by explaining fields as key-value pairs from list_forms and providing an example. It clarifies the dependency for formId.
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?
Description clearly states 'Submit a form on behalf of the user (Wix Forms)', with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_forms and create_booking, and mentions the prerequisite.
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?
Explicitly instructs to call list_forms first to get formId and field keys, providing clear context for when to use this tool. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but sibling tools are dissimilar enough.
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: appointments, products, events, places, menus, reviews, forms, etc. No two tools have overlapping purposes; even similar booking tools (create_booking, request_reservation, reserve_event_tickets, rsvp_event) are clearly differentiated by description and use case.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using lowercase with underscores (e.g., create_booking, list_events, search_places). Verbs are appropriate (create, get, list, search, submit, request, reserve, rsvp) and nouns clearly indicate the resource.
28 tools cover a broad domain (neighborhood directory with Wix integrations). While each tool has a clear purpose, the count exceeds the typical 3-15 range slightly, making the surface feel somewhat heavy but still manageable.
The tool surface provides comprehensive coverage for the domain: discovery (search places, list events, list guides), details (get place, get reviews), booking (appointments, restaurant, event tickets, RSVP), checkout, forms, FAQs, loyalty, pricing plans, and more. No obvious dead ends for common user journeys.
