Submit a pending form

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

The description discloses that the tool 'posts them to the participant' and 'reads back the submission id', revealing a network side effect not captured by annotations. It also explains that the id is saved for the next step, adding useful stateful context. It does not cover error conditions or idempotency nuances, but annotations already handle the basic safety profile, so this is solid.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds meaningful detail. No redundancy or filler. Ideal structure for an AI agent to quickly parse.

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?

The description covers the full workflow: what triggers the tool, the two usage modes, what the participant receives, and how the output is consumed by the next step. The output schema exists to explain return values, and annotations cover side-effect safety. No critical information is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool confidently.

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% with good field descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the conditional use of `fields` vs `submission_id` based on session mode, and links `fields` names to form_fetch. This goes beyond simply restating the schema, justifying a 4.

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's function: 'Complete the form step and advance the flow.' It distinguishes this from sibling tools like flow_proceed by focusing specifically on form submission, and it explains the two modes (llm_auto and manual), 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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance for both session types ('In llm_auto sessions pass fields... In manual sessions pass submission_id...'). It references form_fetch for field names, providing a workflow hint. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like flow_proceed, so it falls just short of a 5.

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