submit-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 key side effects: creates a matter/contact and fires automations. It also clarifies the accepted key types and custom field format, reducing surprise. It does not mention permission requirements or idempotency, but the main behavioral traits are transparently disclosed.

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 efficient: two sentences front-load the core purpose, then add essential key-format details. No fluff or redundancy—every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description provides the necessary context: what it does, what side effects occur, and how to format the data. It lacks only peripheral details like response shape or rate limits, but these are not critical for a form submission tool and are not required given the simple parameter structure.

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%, but the description adds considerable value beyond the schema. It explains the standard keys (first_name, last_name, email, phone), the custom_field_<id> format, and the accepted UTM parameters, giving agents precise guidance on how to structure the data object. This goes beyond the schema's generic 'Field values keyed by field ID.'

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 states a specific verb ('Submit') and resource ('entry to a custom form'), and clearly differentiates from siblings by noting that it 'creates a matter/contact and fires the form's automations, exactly like a website submission.' This distinguishes it from direct matter/contact creation tools and read-only form tools.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (for custom form submissions triggering automations), and implicitly contrasts with direct entity creation. It also tells users where to find IDs ('from get-form or list-custom-fields'). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools for non-form-creation scenarios.

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