fill_form

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says 'fill out ... at once' but does not disclose side effects, whether it waits for elements, error handling for partial failures, or permission requirements 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?

Two short sentences with zero waste. The core capability is front-loaded, followed immediately by the routing advice.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain return behavior, error handling, and the required elements format. It omits all of these, leaving the agent with insufficient context to call it confidently.

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%: pageId and includeSnapshot have descriptions, but the required elements array and its uid/value items are undocumented. The description adds some meaning by listing element types, but it does not explain the uid/value structure, so it only partially compensates.

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 (fill out), resource (multiple form elements), and enumerates element types (inputs, selects, checkboxes, radios). It explicitly names the sibling alternative 'fill' and distinguishes the batch use case, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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 says to prefer this over many fill calls, which names the alternative and the condition that selects it. However, it does not state when to use the single-element sibling instead (e.g., for one field), leaving a small routing gap.

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