Submit a website form

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format and a safety constraint (user confirmation), which is useful. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or the potential side effects of submitting data to an external site.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose/method, usage precondition, and return value. No redundant wording or excessive detail.

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 moderately complex tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and return value. It omits details about headers and edge cases, but the core information the agent needs to select and invoke the tool is present.

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 50% (action and fields documented, method and headers not). The description adds context about form-encoding for the method parameter, but provides no additional meaning for headers. It partially compensates for the coverage gap but not fully.

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 uses a specific verb ('Submit') and resource ('real website form'), and explicitly states the encoding (form-encoded GET or POST) and return value (HTTP status and snippet). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like mirror_web_form, which only creates a mirrored form.

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 gives a clear conditional: 'Only call this with data the user entered in a mirrored form card, or values the user explicitly confirmed.' This defines the appropriate context and implicitly discourages arbitrary use, though it does not name alternative tools for other scenarios.

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