form

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clarifies that 'state' returns form fields, validation, and readiness, and hints at selection behavior, but it does not disclose side effects of 'select', 'toggle', 'special', or 'upload', nor any persistence, submission, or destructive implications.

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 compact and front-loads the action names, which is good. However, it is telegraphic, uses an incomplete pipe-separated structure, and appears truncated mid-sentence, reducing readability and completeness.

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?

This is an action-dispatch tool with seven parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description should provide substantial guidance. It only covers two of five actions and omits return shapes, parameter semantics for several fields, and behavior for upload/special/toggle, leaving critical gaps for reliable invocation.

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 only 43%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning for action-specific usage (e.g., formRef omitted means all forms, select uses ref and value), but it leaves ref, value, filePath, and the toggle/special/upload actions semantically unexplained.

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 identifies the tool as 'Form ops' and enumerates specific operations: 'state' returns fields, validation, and submit readiness; 'select' accepts a ref and value. This makes the core purpose clear, though the truncation leaves 'toggle', 'special', and 'upload' unexplained and there is no explicit contrast with sibling tools.

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 implies that this tool should be used for form-related operations, and it gives some context for when to use 'state' vs 'select'. However, it never explicitly states when to choose this tool over siblings such as click, type_text, or real_click, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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