submit

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: gathering values from elements, navigating to action URL, serializing checked checkboxes/radios, and lack of multipart support. It does not cover error handling or response behavior, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 (three sentences) with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action and method support, then adds edge-case details (serialization, restriction) efficiently.

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 simple, single-parameter tool without output schema, the description covers essential behavior, limitations, and supported cases. It does not explicitly state navigation behavior after submission, but the tool's role in a broader automation context (e.g., subsequent settle) makes this acceptable.

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% for the single parameter 'ref', and its schema description ('Form element ref like e:142') already explains its meaning. The tool description adds no additional details about the ref format or how to obtain it, so it provides no added value beyond the schema.

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 tool submits a form by gathering input/textarea/select values and navigating to the action URL. It specifies supported methods (GET, POST) and explicitly excludes multipart forms, making the purpose distinct from sibling tools like click or navigate.

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 (form submission) and explicitly mentions unsupported multipart forms, but does not contrast with alternative tools for similar tasks (e.g., click on submit button). Still, it provides sufficient guidance for a typical form submission scenario.

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