charlotte_submit

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 does state the return value ('Returns full page representation after submission'), which is useful. However, it does not disclose that submitting a form is a mutating action with potential side effects (e.g., data changes, navigation, or irreversible submissions). The description mentions a 'clicking' method without clarifying whether it simulates a user click or requires the button to be visible, which is a behavioral 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 concise at two sentences, with the primary action front-loaded. The second sentence adds return information without excessive detail. The 'Can submit by form ID or by clicking its submit button' clause is somewhat ambiguous but does not significantly bloat the description. Overall, it is appropriately sized for a simple 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 one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core action and return value, which is fairly complete. However, it omits prerequisites (e.g., needing to be on a page with a form, ensuring the form_id is valid) and does not clarify the 'clicking' method. The mention of an alternative submission method without explaining how to invoke it via the schema reduces completeness. Given the tool's simplicity, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 schema covers the single parameter 'form_id' with a description ('Form ID from page representation'), giving a baseline of 3. However, the description introduces an alternative submission method ('or by clicking its submit button') that is not represented in the schema, making the parameter semantics confusing. It doesn't add meaningful detail about how form_id is used or obtained, and the alternative method could mislead the agent into expecting an additional parameter.

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 purpose: 'Submit a form.' This specifies the action (submit) and the resource (form), distinguishing it from sibling tools like charlotte_click or charlotte_type. However, the added 'Can submit by form ID or by clicking its submit button' introduces ambiguity about how submission is performed, detracting from full clarity.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like charlotte_click. It mentions two submission methods (by form ID or clicking the submit button) but does not explain when one should be preferred, nor does it contrast with sibling tools that could also perform similar actions. This leaves the agent without clear selection criteria.

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