uof_custom_apply_form

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that submission does not validate required fields, attachments are unsupported, and first_signer_account is ignored for web forms. However, it does not detail authentication requirements or error handling.

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, front-loading the critical output (TaskId), followed by usage context and limitations. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 (6 parameters, nested object) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers prerequisites, parameter usage, and limitations. It lacks explicit error handling details but is otherwise comprehensive.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds significant context: explains fields parameter shape depends on form, clarifies first_signer_account behavior for SOAP vs web forms, and notes applicant_account must equal UOF_ACCOUNT for web forms—all beyond the schema.

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 verb and result ('正式起單，成功回傳 TaskId'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_form_structure and query_forms. It specifies the resource (form submission) and the key output (TaskId).

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('已用 get_form_structure_by_id 確認...後，要正式送出時') and provides limitations ('不驗證必填欄位','附檔、多站/並簽會簽尚未支援'), which serve as guidance for when not to use.

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