fill_form

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions filling a form but doesn't describe how it behaves: e.g., does it submit the form, wait for completion, handle errors, or require specific page states? For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this lack of detail on side effects, permissions, or limitations is a significant gap.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Russian ('Заполнить форму данными'), which is appropriately sized and front-loaded. It wastes no words, though it could be more informative. Every word earns its place, but the brevity contributes to under-specification rather than optimal clarity.

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 (3 parameters, nested objects, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or dependencies on other tools (e.g., needing a browser connection). For a form-filling tool in a browser automation context, more detail on behavior and integration is needed to be fully helpful.

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 description adds no meaning beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all three parameters (formSelector, fields, tabIndex). Since schema_description_coverage is high, the baseline is 3, as the schema adequately documents parameters without needing extra explanation in the description.

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 'Заполнить форму данными' (Fill a form with data) states a clear verb ('fill') and resource ('form'), but it's vague about scope and mechanism. It doesn't specify whether this is for web forms, UI forms, or other contexts, nor does it distinguish from siblings like 'type' or 'click' which might handle form interactions differently. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'type' (for inputting text), 'click' (for submitting), and 'wait_for_element' (for form readiness), there's no indication of prerequisites, typical workflows, or exclusions. Usage is implied from the name but not explicitly stated, leaving the agent to guess based on context.

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