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 carries full burden. It mentions returning a submissionId on success but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as side effects, authentication requirements, or error conditions.
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 concise sentences that are front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a prerequisite note. No wasted 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?
For a tool with 2 required parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains usage, input format, and return value. Some additional context on error handling or data mutation would be beneficial.
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% and description adds value by explaining that fields are key-value pairs matching field keys from list_forms and providing an example. This goes 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?
Description clearly states 'Submit a form on behalf of the user (Wix Forms)'. It specifies the resource (form submission) and action (submit), and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_forms.
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 obtain formId and field keys, providing a clear actionable prerequisite for using this tool.
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 domain action, with clear boundaries between similar operations (e.g., create_booking vs request_reservation vs reserve_event_tickets). Descriptions provide enough context to avoid confusion.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, e.g., create_booking, get_availability, list_events. No mixing of styles or ambiguous verbs.
28 tools is slightly above average but appropriate for a multi-feature neighborhood directory covering bookings, events, movies, menus, forms, etc. Each tool serves a distinct purpose, justifying the count.
The tool set covers most expected operations for a directory site: search, details, reviews, booking, events, menus, blog, FAQ, forms, etc. Minor gaps like cancellation or user booking history are acceptable given the domain scope.