elster_form_press

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the refusal policy (no sending, draft deletion, or logout) and that it mutates form state via commands. It omits auth requirements, idempotency, error behavior, and what the response looks like for a mutation tool.

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?

A single dense sentence, but it is front-loaded with the core concept, then examples, then refusals. Each clause earns its place, with minimal waste.

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 3-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers identity, examples, and exclusions, but leaves gaps on return behavior, error handling, and when this outranks the sibling form tools. Adequate but not fully complete for a low-level escape hatch.

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 67%, so the schema documents most parameters. The description adds real value by giving concrete command examples (AddMzbItem, FillInProfile) and clarifying buttonId vs. raw command usage. The 'rid' parameter ('Jump here first') remains opaque in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('presses a button by id or posts a raw reqCmd JSON'), and the 'escape hatch' framing distinguishes it from structured siblings like elster_form_set or elster_form_add_row. The purpose is clear, though the description leans on internal jargon (reqCmd, EditDetachedMzbSemIndex) that assumes domain knowledge.

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 'Escape hatch' label implies this is for cases the normal form tools can't handle, and the refusal list ('Sending, deleting drafts and logging out are refused') gives explicit when-not boundaries. However, it never names which sibling to prefer for standard edits, leaving the routing to inference.

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