Fill form

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses clearing each field, real key events, value verification, and the stop conditions (page change, dialog, failed field) plus partial-progress reporting. It omits any auth/permission prerequisites and rate-limit 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?

Three dense sentences with zero filler; the core behavior is front-loaded and the alternative-tool hint is placed last where it's least disruptive. Every clause carries actionable information.

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 an 8-param, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers ordering, per-field mechanics, stop conditions, and partial failure reporting. It leaves return-shape details ("reports how far it got") and tab/agent parameter behavior to the schema, which is reasonable but not exhaustive.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning to the submit parameter that the schema lacks — "Enter" presses Enter in the last field and a button ref clicks that button. This clarifies the exact dispatch behavior beyond the schema's terse "Enter or a button ref to click."

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 and resource (fills several inputs on the same page, in order) and distinguishes itself from browser_select by routing dropdowns elsewhere. An agent can tell it apart from browser_type (single input) and browser_select from the text alone.

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 names the alternative for dropdowns ("For dropdowns use browser_select") and implies multi-field batching via "several inputs on the same page." It stops short of an explicit when-to-use-this-vs-browser_type statement, so it's clear context without full exclusion guidance.

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