fill_form

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does a solid job: it discloses batch behavior, supported control types, addressing by id/name/msg, and the per-item success/readback return contract. It does not detail error handling or side effects, but it is materially transparent.

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 three concise, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The first sentence gives the core behavior, the second enumerates capabilities, and the third states the result format.

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 one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers input semantics, supported control types, addressing, and return values. The main remaining gap is an explicit per-operation JSON shape or example, but the description is sufficient for an agent to call the tool with reasonable confidence.

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 schema only documents ops as '填写操作数组，见工具说明', so the description adds real meaning by explaining what ops can contain: supported field types, addressing methods, and return semantics. This exceeds the schema baseline and helps an agent construct valid operations.

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 states a specific verb and resource: '按 ops 批量执行填写/纠错' (batch fill/correct according to ops), and further specifies supported control types and addressing modes. This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like navigate, inspect_form, and verify_form.

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 makes its context clear: use it to fill or correct form controls in batch. However, it does not explicitly discuss when to prefer a sibling tool or when not to use this tool, such as inspecting the form first or verifying afterwards.

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