write_form_date

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses two distinct internal execution paths based on open_link (config-agnostic foreground label writer vs capture-backed field writer with date-prefix readback acceptance), which is useful implementation-level transparency. However, it does not state whether the operation requires specific permissions, whether it mutates persistently (the save parameter exists but its effect is not explained), or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotations, the behavioral disclosure is partial.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. The two sentences are dense with technical detail but earn their place by distinguishing the tool's scope and behavior. Minor improvement: the second sentence could be clearer about what 'config-agnostic foreground label writer' means to an agent.

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?

There is an output schema, so the description needn't explain return values. However, with 12 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It omits all parameter semantics, permission/authentication requirements, and the effect of the 'save' parameter. For a complex mutation tool with many undocumented parameters, this is inadequate.

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%, and the description adds no meaning for any of the 12 parameters. It mentions 'open_link' but only in terms of internal implementation paths, not what the parameter value should be or what it controls at the API level. Critical parameters like 'capture', 'display', 'base_field', 'input_offset', 'default_value', and 'captured_value' are entirely undocumented. This is a severe gap for a 12-parameter tool.

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 and resource: 'Set a FORM-LEVEL managed-form date EditField (`DD.MM.YYYY`)'. It explicitly distinguishes itself from grid date-cell writing, which is a relevant sibling distinction (set_table_date_cell). The only gap is that it does not name which specific sibling tool it complements (e.g., set_table_date_cell) by name, but the general differentiation is clear.

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 explains a conditional behavior based on the open_link parameter ('With open_link this uses... Without open_link it falls back to...'), which is more behavioral than usage guidance. There is no explicit statement of when an agent should choose this tool over set_table_date_cell, set_table_cell, or write_form_value. The agent must infer usage context from the tool name and the vague 'distinct from grid date-cell writing' clause.

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