wavexis_fill_form

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

The description discloses side effects beyond annotations: 'Clears and sets the value of each field, firing input events on every targeted element.' It also details the return JSON structure, including error keys. This adds significant value given the tool has destructiveHint and no idempotentHint.

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 (4 sentences) and well-structured: purpose first, usage guidance, side effects, return format. No extraneous content.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple parameters, nested objects, no output schema in structured format), the description covers purpose, alternatives, side effects, and return values comprehensively. The return format is fully described.

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?

Despite a reported 0% schema description coverage, the actual input schema contains detailed descriptions for all parameters (e.g., 'CSS selector for the input element', 'Value to fill'). The description does not add further parameter-level information, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool fills multiple form fields in one call, identifies itself as a convenience composite tool, and distinguishes its purpose from sibling tools like wavexis_fill (single field) and wavexis_type (per-keystroke).

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 explicitly guides when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'Use wavexis_fill for a single field or wavexis_type when per-keystroke events are required.' This provides clear decision support.

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