Manage push-notification watches

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true), the description discloses many critical behavioral traits: watches expire after 7 days, renew reactivates SUSPENDED watches, notification payload is limited to formId/watchId/eventType, topic must grant Pub/Sub Publisher role, and specific limits (1 per user+form+event, 20 per project). This is rich, transparent context that helps the agent anticipate side effects and constraints.

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 information-dense yet well-structured: it opens with the purpose, then methodically covers actions, prerequisites, expiration/renewal behavior, notification payload, and limits. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it long but appropriately so for the tool's complexity.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description is remarkably complete for a multi-action tool. It covers all four actions, required setup, permissions, lifecycle behavior (expiry/renew), notification attributes, follow-up tool suggestions, and usage limits. The only minor omission is explicit return value structure, but 'list shows your watches' and the mention of watch_id for create implicitly cover it.

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?

Although the schema already describes each parameter (100% coverage), the description adds deeper semantics: event_type values are explained (RESPONSES = new submissions, SCHEMA = form structure changes), topic_name requires a specific IAM role, watch_id can be custom for create, and actions have different parameter requirements. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema fields.

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 clearly states it 'Manages Cloud Pub/Sub push-notification watches on a form' and enumerates four distinct actions (create, list, delete, renew), making the tool's purpose highly specific and distinguishable from sibling tools that handle form editing or response retrieval.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use each action, including required parameters per action, permission prerequisites, and even post-notification next steps (call list_responses or get_form based on event_type). This goes well beyond a simple usage statement and effectively guides the agent on alternative actions when notifications arrive.

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