submit_form

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains the two execution paths (clicking submit or pressing Enter) and the fallback behavior when selector is omitted. While it does not mention side effects like page navigation, the described actions are specific and unambiguous.

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 concise, with a one-sentence purpose followed by an explicitly labeled argument explanation. No redundant information is present; every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter tool, the description covers the core action and parameter semantics fully. An output schema is present, so return values need not be explained. It could optionally mention prerequisites (e.g., a form must be present), but the tool is straightforward and adequate as is.

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 input schema only specifies 'selector' as a nullable string with a default null. The description's Args section adds essential semantics: it defines the selector as targeting a submit button or form and describes the fallback to pressing Enter when omitted. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 the specific verb 'Submit' targeting a form resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'click' and 'fill_field'. It states the action and the two mechanisms (clicking submit button or pressing Enter), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly defines the context for use (submitting a form) and details the behavior with and without a selector. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like 'click' or mention when not to use, but the context is clear enough for an agent to choose this tool appropriately.

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