fill_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 behaviors: preservation of original formatting, handling of multi-line values and bullet cells, return of filled/skipped fields and output path, and byte-identity of unmodified regions. This is fairly transparent, though it omits potential side effects or permission requirements.

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 concise, with every sentence adding meaningful information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses bullet points for behavioral details. No redundant text.

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?

The description covers the core operation and output, but leaves out details on optional boolean parameters and path/out_path semantics. Given the existence of an output schema, the return value is partially covered, but the explanation of parameter behavior is incomplete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only clarifies that 'values' is a map of field_id or label to value. The other parameters (path, out_path, respect_bullets, normalize_spacing) remain undocumented. This insufficiently compensates for the schema gap.

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 verb and resource: 'Fill values into an HWPX form'. It also mentions preserving formatting, which adds specificity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_form' or 'extract_text', so it falls short of a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or conditions under which this tool should not be used. This leaves the agent without clear direction on selecting it over siblings.

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