submit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one real behavioral rule: the call is refused if the target button's name is a forbidden verb. However it omits what a submit actually does (data mutation, navigation, network side effects), how multiple forms or multiple candidate buttons are resolved, and how failure surfaces — meaningful gaps for a mutation action with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the action and target, with the refusal rule in a compact parenthetical. Nothing is padded and nothing is buried.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the zero-parameter schema keeps the call surface trivial. What is missing is disambiguation behavior — which form/button is chosen when several match, and whether submission navigates or mutates state.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema leaves nothing to explain and the baseline is 4. The description correctly spends no words on parameters and instead spends them on target-selection semantics.

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?

It names a concrete action (clicking a form's submit-family button) and enumerates the button labels it targets (Save, Create, Apply, Submit), which lets an agent separate it from the generic click/click_index siblings by intent rather than by position. The one-word name 'submit' is thin, but the description immediately disambiguates it.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated — an agent infers 'use when you need to commit a form' but there is no explicit when-to-use framing, no guidance on preferring this over click/click_index, and no statement of what to do when no matching button exists. The forbidden-verb refusal is the only boundary condition given.

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