arc_fill_form

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden but only states the action. No disclosure of side effects, error behavior, preconditions (e.g., page loaded), or whether it is destructive. Missing key behavioral context.

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?

Single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. Every word is essential; no superfluous content.

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?

While the description covers the basic purpose, for a tool with no output schema and no annotations, more contextual details (e.g., active tab behavior, handling of missing elements) would improve completeness. Adequate but not enriched.

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% and already describes `fields` and `tab_index` adequately. The description adds no additional meaning beyond affirming it works on multiple elements, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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?

Description clearly specifies the action ('input values'), the target ('multiple form elements'), and the batch nature ('at once'). It effectively distinguishes from similar tools like `arc_fill` which likely fills a single element.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., `arc_fill` for single fields). The description implies batch use but does not state scenarios where it is preferred or avoided.

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