Submit a response to a Rootr form

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and destructiveHint=false (non-destructive). The description adds authentication context and that it's not anonymous, but does not disclose side effects like data creation or potential overwrites. Behavior is adequately described for common cases.

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?

Two concise sentences with front-loaded purpose and immediate parameter guidance. No superfluous content; every sentence contributes meaning.

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 no output schema, the description covers the essential input behavior and prerequisite. It could mention the result of submission, but with sibling tools like rootr_list_form_responses, the context is sufficiently complete for a submission tool.

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% (baseline 3). Description adds value by explaining that 'values' is keyed by field id and advising to read the form first to get exact ids, enhancing understanding beyond schema alone.

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 action (submit one response), the resource (Rootr form), and distinguishes it from the public anonymous flow, making it specific and 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?

Provides a clear prerequisite (call rootr_read_form first) and implies the tool is for authenticated submissions. Does not explicitly list alternatives or conditions when not to use, but offers sufficient guidance for typical usage.

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