Fill form

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond the annotations: fields are processed in order, a single field failure does not abort the rest, and the response reports per-uid success/error so partial fills are visible. This adds meaningful context about failure semantics and side effects that annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true) do not capture.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by three tightly scoped sentences covering behavior, error handling, and an efficiency note. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 2 parameters, an output schema, and clear sibling relationships, the description is thorough. It covers batch behavior, ordering considerations, partial-failure robustness, and the snapshot option's trade-off, providing enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without needing the output schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters ('elements' and 'include_snapshot') are already fully documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond reaffirming the order property of 'elements' in the prose ('Fields are processed in the order given'), which is a marginal enhancement. Baseline 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 opens with 'Fill several form fields in a single call,' a specific verb+resource that clearly identifies the tool's function. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'fill' by noting the batch behavior and round-trip savings, preventing ambiguity.

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 names 'fill' as the per-field alternative and explains the benefit of using this tool ('costs one round trip instead of one per field'). It provides context for when ordering matters (pages that reveal/enable later fields), giving clear usage context, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it.

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