write_form_value

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does so well: it describes the capture-replay mechanism to establish an input-authorized session, the retarget-and-verify-by-readback flow, and the mutation semantics of COMMIT. It also discloses the open_link route's write_mode value and screenshot artifact. It omits permission/auth requirements and any warning about the 'save' parameter, which for a write tool would be valuable.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and subsequent sentences (commit_partner example, open_link route) each carry substantive information rather than filler. It is dense and backtick-heavy, but every paragraph earns its place for a mechanism this unusual.

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 complex, stateful write tool an output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still notes committed/readback_value/field. Core behaviors and the alternate route are covered; the main gap is the undocumented half of the parameter set.

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 0% across 14 params, so the description must compensate. It explains value, field, base_field, capture, commit_partner, commit_partner_value and open_link with concrete examples, but says nothing about host, port, save, display, input_offset, default_value, or captured_value, leaving roughly half the parameters undocumented.

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 concrete verb+resource ('Write an arbitrary VALUE into a form field and COMMIT it natively') and clarifies the two write routes. It distinguishes itself from the plural write_form_values and from write_form_value_xtest via the open_link write_mode, but never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Offers real conditional guidance: use commit_partner when the base field's genuine input has no trailing focus-change, and use open_link to switch to the config-agnostic route. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over the obvious alternatives (write_form_values, write_form_value_xtest, write_form_fields_by_label), leaving that comparison to inference.

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