send_test_submission

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the side effect (counts as one submission against the plan), the wire behavior (JSON body, Accept: application/json), and that honeypot/redirect controls are always stripped. It omits auth requirements and error/failure behavior.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and its fidelity guarantee before the workflow and parameter guidance. Dense with useful detail and no filler, though the instruction set is close to overloaded for a two-parameter tool.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers side effects, expected-next-tool, and parameter handling, and notes the dashboard shows content. It still leaves the return payload shape and failure modes unstated.

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 only 50% (formId is undocumented), but the description compensates meaningfully: it explains that `values` must match the form's fields, how to handle consent-gated forms with `_consent: "on"`, and what defaults apply when omitted. It adds semantic value beyond the schema, though it does not explain where formId comes from.

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?

States a specific verb (send), resource (one test submission), and scope (this machine, form's endpoint), plus fidelity detail ('exactly like the website will'). An agent can distinguish it from list_forms, create_form, and get_form_stats without opening any schema.

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?

Clearly frames this as a testing action and prescribes the follow-up step ('Then call get_form_stats to confirm it arrived'), routing the agent to a sibling. It does not state when NOT to use it (e.g., real user submissions should go through the live form, not this tool).

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